Should Christians Hunt?

[Twave]

By the same token, God gave you dominion as parents, over your children. Do you care for them and protect them or hunt them down and kill them?

"Dominion" doesn't mean "kill".

"Conserve" doesn't mean "kill".

You can't conserve anything by destroying it.
Antonyms for "conserve"; exhaust, spend, squander, use, waste

Synonyms for "conserve"; keep, maintain, nurse, preserve, protect, safeguard

I know it's a popular idea that hunters are conservationists but in reality, such a claim makes no sense whatsoever.

Dang! I see your point. But I'm still gonna hunt. But I will always eat what I kill.

 

[Torah]

You started this thread with a Question? “Should Christians Hunt?”
This is an outdoor forum and there being hunters in this forum why would you ask a quotation that you already have your answer for? Is this not trolling?

In your profile you say;
“I SIMPLY WANT EVERYONE TO GET A LONG.”
By posting in an outdoor forum you must have known that this post was simply not going to make everyone get a long!

You also claim to be an;
“I AM A ANIMAL LOVER AND ANIMAL RIGHTS SUPPORTER.”
I know some animal rights supporter’s that would not look too kindly on you for fishing and causing fish pain. All of this comes across as a little hypocritical from their point of view. And I must agree.

I do agree with you about not hunting just to kill such as to make an Elephant leg for a trash basket, [I have seen this].
I have no problem with hunting for food or to help keep the price of food down at home, or raising farm animals for food and food byproducts.

You said;
" I like being outdoors " OK! Yet you need to hunt? A.k.a. KILL, why not hike, camp, or better yet outdoor/wildlife photography”.
This is your agenda for posting this thread. You want to point at others who you know, do not think like you, and your tell them, “Yet you need to hunt? A.k.a KILL,”
This is taken as an attack. And it is. Then you make yourself out as being better than others when you say, “why not hike, camp, or better yet outdoor/wildlife photography”.
[You should add, “like me”]
Some people don’t want to be like you,

“I will leave you with a few quotes to think about:”
It would have been better if you had left us with quotes from G-ds word.

Now for "Thou shalt not kill".

"Thou shalt not kill" (Doesn't say "murder", it says "kill".)
The exact Hebrew wording of this biblical phrase is lo tirtzack. One of the greatest scholars of Hebrew/English linguistics (in the Twentieth Century) -Dr. Reuben Alcalay - has written in his mammoth book the Complete Hebrew /English Dictionary that "tirtzach" refers to "any kind of killing whatsoever." The word "lo," as you might suspect, means "thou shalt not."
http://www.thenazareneway.com/thou_shalt_not_kill.htm

This is totally wrong. This “mammoth book” is a railing points for Vegetarian almost all web sites I looked into quotes from this book. From the Hebrew point of view it means Murder.




From Rabbi Moss
Question
Is the commandment that the Lord gave to Moses "You shall not kill" or "You shall not murder?" Thank you for your time.
Answer

You have asked one of the most important questions to ask in order to understand Biblical morality.
The original Hebrew is "Lo Tirtzach", which means "Do not murder". The Hebrew word for killing is "Hariga", a completely different verb.
Murder is the taking of innocent life, which is always forbidden, while killing is the taking of any life, which is sometimes not only permitted but obligatory. The Bible commands us to kill those who have lost their innocence. Innocence is lost in two ways:

1) Someone who was found guilty in a court of certain crimes, for example, "Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech (a form of idolatry where priests pass children through ritual fires) must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him." (Leviticus 20:2)

2) Someone who is clearly posing a direct threat to the lives of innocents. "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account" (Exodus 22:2). This only applies where it is clear that he is willing to kill the house owner.
It is clear that there is no contradiction between these commandments - actually they compliment each other. Innocent life is protected, both by the commandment not to murder and the commandment to kill those who are a threat to innocence.
All the best,
Rabbi Moss
--
Lo Tirtzach / You shall not murder

http://www.cmy.on.ca/toraportions2000/shemot/printerfriendly/yitro5764.htm
--
“You shall not murder!” That is the best translation of the original Hebrew. Sometimes people read it as, “You shall not kill”. But that is not as accurate. The Hebrew word is “Tirtzach” and it refers to wrongful killing,
http://www.firstbaptist-wlfd.org/sermon01272002.html
--
Ten Commandments
http://www.akhlah.com/holidays/shavuot/10_commandments.php
--
The Ten Commandmants
http://www.geocities.com/buddychai/Religion/TenCommandments.html
--
Strongs Concordance
page 110 - 7523
KILL Ratsach , raw-tsakh prim root; kill a human being, espec. To murder- kill, man slay (er). Murder (er)

Someone said ; "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of something to eat." ~ Romans 14:20

Rom 14: 1
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. [6] He who eats meat eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

[1] Disputable matters: If God says in his word this you can eat, and this you cannot eat. Then it is not a disputable matter.
So! Roman chapter 14 is about people who eat only vegetables. And the people who eat kosher meat, Looking down on him who does not eat kosher meat. This is a Disputable matters. Because the law- Torah does not say you cant eat only vegetables.
Rom 14: 14
As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no (kosher) food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

[20] Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of (kosher) food. All (kosher) food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.
What Paul is saying “vegetables or meat” its all-kosher food so lets move on in the Lord!

What is food? This is what God says is food.
Lev 11: 46-47
"'These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground.
You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.'" (FOOD.)



All in all, I believe you started this thread just to tick off a bunch of hunters. And you seceded

 

[PACKY]

You started this thread with a Question? “Should Christians Hunt?”
This is an outdoor forum and there being hunters in this forum why would you ask a quotation that you already have your answer for? Is this not trolling?

In your profile you say;
“I SIMPLY WANT EVERYONE TO GET A LONG.”
By posting in an outdoor forum you must have known that this post was simply not going to make everyone get a long!

You also claim to be an;
“I AM A ANIMAL LOVER AND ANIMAL RIGHTS SUPPORTER.”
I know some animal rights supporter’s that would not look too kindly on you for fishing and causing fish pain. All of this comes across as a little hypocritical from their point of view. And I must agree.

I do agree with you about not hunting just to kill such as to make an Elephant leg for a trash basket, [I have seen this].
I have no problem with hunting for food or to help keep the price of food down at home, or raising farm animals for food and food byproducts.

You said;
" I like being outdoors " OK! Yet you need to hunt? A.k.a. KILL, why not hike, camp, or better yet outdoor/wildlife photography”.
This is your agenda for posting this thread. You want to point at others who you know, do not think like you, and your tell them, “Yet you need to hunt? A.k.a KILL,”
This is taken as an attack. And it is. Then you make yourself out as being better than others when you say, “why not hike, camp, or better yet outdoor/wildlife photography”.
[You should add, “like me”]
Some people don’t want to be like you,

“I will leave you with a few quotes to think about:”
It would have been better if you had left us with quotes from G-ds word.

Now for "Thou shalt not kill".


This is totally wrong. This “mammoth book” is a railing points for Vegetarian almost all web sites I looked into quotes from this book. From the Hebrew point of view it means Murder.




From Rabbi Moss
Question
Is the commandment that the Lord gave to Moses "You shall not kill" or "You shall not murder?" Thank you for your time.
Answer

You have asked one of the most important questions to ask in order to understand Biblical morality.
The original Hebrew is "Lo Tirtzach", which means "Do not murder". The Hebrew word for killing is "Hariga", a completely different verb.
Murder is the taking of innocent life, which is always forbidden, while killing is the taking of any life, which is sometimes not only permitted but obligatory. The Bible commands us to kill those who have lost their innocence. Innocence is lost in two ways:

1) Someone who was found guilty in a court of certain crimes, for example, "Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech (a form of idolatry where priests pass children through ritual fires) must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him." (Leviticus 20:2)

2) Someone who is clearly posing a direct threat to the lives of innocents. "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account" (Exodus 22:2). This only applies where it is clear that he is willing to kill the house owner.
It is clear that there is no contradiction between these commandments - actually they compliment each other. Innocent life is protected, both by the commandment not to murder and the commandment to kill those who are a threat to innocence.
All the best,
Rabbi Moss
--
Lo Tirtzach / You shall not murder

http://www.cmy.on.ca/toraportions2000/shemot/printerfriendly/yitro5764.htm
--
“You shall not murder!” That is the best translation of the original Hebrew. Sometimes people read it as, “You shall not kill”. But that is not as accurate. The Hebrew word is “Tirtzach” and it refers to wrongful killing,
http://www.firstbaptist-wlfd.org/sermon01272002.html
--
Ten Commandments
http://www.akhlah.com/holidays/shavuot/10_commandments.php
--
The Ten Commandmants
http://www.geocities.com/buddychai/Religion/TenCommandments.html
--
Strongs Concordance
page 110 - 7523
KILL Ratsach , raw-tsakh prim root; kill a human being, espec. To murder- kill, man slay (er). Murder (er)

Someone said ; "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of something to eat." ~ Romans 14:20

Rom 14: 1
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. [6] He who eats meat eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

[1] Disputable matters: If God says in his word this you can eat, and this you cannot eat. Then it is not a disputable matter.
So! Roman chapter 14 is about people who eat only vegetables. And the people who eat kosher meat, Looking down on him who does not eat kosher meat. This is a Disputable matters. Because the law- Torah does not say you cant eat only vegetables.
Rom 14: 14
As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no (kosher) food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

[20] Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of (kosher) food. All (kosher) food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.
What Paul is saying “vegetables or meat” its all-kosher food so lets move on in the Lord!

What is food? This is what God says is food.
Lev 11: 46-47
"'These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground.
You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.'" (FOOD.)



All in all, I believe you started this thread just to tick off a bunch of hunters. And you seceded

If you are going to quote please include all the quote as wel as the refrence/response

I dont expect others to do as I do and I have made that clear.

i asked a hypotheitical question when I started this topic.

I have no intent to upset anyone but only hope to partake imeaningful debate and learning.

Once again you brought up the issue of eating meat..Why? for the third time I will one again advise that the OP has no mention of a vegetarian diet and that it is strictly about hunting and the ethics surronding it.
Thanks...

 

[Beastt]

Dang! I see your point. But I'm still gonna hunt. But I will always eat what I kill.

That's more than fair. As I see it, this isn't about an attempt to dictate behavior to anyone. It's simply about information. Only with information can anyone be expected to make a well-informed, and therefore appropriate decision.

This is totally wrong. This “mammoth book” is a railing points for Vegetarian almost all web sites I looked into quotes from this book. From the Hebrew point of view it means Murder.

If I'm not mistaken, Torah, you are referring to one or several of my posts rather than a post by BLESSEDBETHEMEEK, so I will address it. The book is a valid publication by a recognized expert in Hebrew/English interpretation. Certainly you do not agree with what he has to say and you're not alone. It shouldn't surprise you that there is some disagreement concerning what the origninal Hebrew means. You offer Rabbi Moss as an expert and I offer Rueben Alcalay as an expert. So what we've established is that the experts disagree.

The original Judaism version of the ten commandments states, "Thou Shalt Not Murder". The original Augustine version states, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and the original Origen version states, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". My KJV of the Holy Bible states, "Thou Shalt Not Kill", and Rueben Alcalay translates the original Hebrew to say, "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

If the result is less cruelty and suffering, I don't find that to be inappropriate. Until the past 20-years or so, I'd never even heard anyone suggest that the interpretation should be "Thou Shalt Not Murder", and as I've stated before, "murder" is a legal term. It's based on man's laws. When you translate the commandment as "Thou Shalt Not Murder", you're actually saying, "Thou Shalt Not Kill in Violation of the Legislative Statutes, as Written and Adopted by Man for the Specific Area in Which the Act of Taking a Life is Performed". If you're happy with that kind of interpretation of what you believe is God's word, then fine. There's nothing I can do or say to change your mind and I'm not here to change your mind, only to offer information which may suggest alternatives. You will believe what you wish to believe as I, BlessedBeTheMeek, and everyone else will each believe what they wish to believe. Personally, I find it rather difficult to believe that God would leave it up to man to decide when killing is permissable and when it isn't. Then again, I don't believe in God. I believe the Bible was written by men without any divine connection. But your version of the commandment seems to be the one gaining ground and I find that not in the least bit surprising. Rarely ever does man not find a way to bend laws, interpretations and actions to suit himself.

 

[Blazin4Christ]

By the same token, God gave you dominion as parents, over your children. Do you care for them and protect them or hunt them down and kill them?

"Dominion" doesn't mean "kill".

"Conserve" doesn't mean "kill".

You can't conserve anything by destroying it.
Antonyms for "conserve"; exhaust, spend, squander, use, waste

Synonyms for "conserve"; keep, maintain, nurse, preserve, protect, safeguard

I know it's a popular idea that hunters are conservationists but in reality, such a claim makes no sense whatsoever.

a child has a soul, an incredibly smart Wild Turkey does not, if you honestly think hunting is wrong go join an environmentalist group, but the first thing I learned when I became a hunter is you really have to respect these animals, they don't go down without a fight,

 

[Beastt]

a child has a soul, an incredibly smart Wild Turkey does not,

This is your opinion.
As I recall, Blacks/slaves didn't used to have souls either.

...if you honestly think hunting is wrong go join an environmentalist group

I already belong.

...but the first thing I learned when I became a hunter is you really have to respect these animals, they don't go down without a fight,

Perhaps this is because they don't want to die. What would you do?

 

[Ryder]

Personally, I find it rather difficult to believe that God would leave it up to man to decide when killing is permissible and when it isn't.

He doesn't.

Genesis 9:2-3 KJV
The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

And that's from the King James, the version that has your favored "kill". It now also translates "food" in reference to animals being given to us.

Then again, I don't believe in God. I believe the Bible was written by men without any divine connection. But your version of the commandment seems to be the one gaining ground and I find that not in the least bit surprising. Rarely ever does man not find a way to bend laws, interpretations and actions to suit himself.

I think the understanding that this commandment did not include animals has you beat by a few thousand years. Not to mention the fact that Scripture itself supports it. No offense intended, but technically your view is the newcomer, and your view appears to be bending laws and interpretations to suit itself.

Just going way off topic for a second, but I found these two quotes interesting.

Arthur Keith -evolutionary anthropologist
The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. -Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.10

Arthur Keith -evolutionary anthropologist
Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti-evolutionary in its aim? -Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.72

The point I wanted to address with these two quotes is simple. What is the basis for morality if evolution is correct? Technically, if evolution is correct, then anything goes. Actually, technically speaking, eugenics sounds like a very reasonable outworking of an evolutionary framework.

Just some food for thought.

 

[andrew04]

I am with Terp on this one! I cant stand even hurting animals even on accident! Like terp i dont think you should kill a beautfil creation by God.

 

[Beastt]

He doesn't [leave the determination of who/what/when to kill up to man]
Genesis 9:2-3 KJV
The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

And that's from the King James, the version that has your favored "kill". It now also translates "food" in reference to animals being given to us.
(...snip)

I snipped out the evolution quotes because I think the point you raise is worthy of being addressed separately and more fully than I'm prepared to do at the moment.

You make some very compelling points, Ryder. But at the same time, you argue Christianity against itself. You quote Genesis 9:2-3 to suggest that this instructs man as to when he can or can't kill. But all it does is tell man he may eat animals. This doesn't change the fact that the phrase "thou shalt not murder" does leave the permission for killing in man's hands. Even the killing of other men. If written as many suggest it should have been, then if any state... say Arkansas, were to make it legal to shoot a non-Christian man walking north on a divided highway on late Friday afternoon, before the Sun set, then doing so would be permissible within the commandment and Genesis 9:2-3 has nothing to say about it. Now granted, such a law is an extremely ludicrous suggestion but that is precisely the point. If the commandment were written as you claim it was intended, then this would not only be legal within the state of Arkansas, but also not a sin within the state of Arkansas.

And to address Genesis 9:2-3; God is telling man that he may now consume animals, yet man is the same anatomically as he was at first creation in the Garden of Eden. That is - he's still a herbivore from a biological standpoint. So what God is instructing him to do is to damage his own health, the ecology and spread suffering, "the 'fear and dread' perhaps" through the animal kingdom. And still, you're able to see this as the instruction of a loving God. Perhaps just all the more reason to begin to see the Bible as being written by men without any influence beyond their own hand. It makes little sense.

 

[jesusfreak1991]

I believe that it is okay to hunt if you are going to eat the meat and it isn;t just for sport

 

[PACKY]

I believe that it is okay to hunt if you are going to eat the meat and it isn;t just for sport

you can meat at the store.. although you are causing a supply and demand for this meat you are not that one actually killing it.
the end result of hunting is very simple..DEATH.

 

[Confederate4Christ]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up....


Genesis 9:3
"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

How in the world could we live without meat...

If you do some lookin around, the number of deer fits in with the carrying capacity of their habitat. Hunting has existed since Genesis, so naturally hunting has worked into the factors that affect the deer population. Without hunting, it's statistically proven that deer would run out of food and starve to death looking for food in your back yard and next to the highway. So ultimately harvesting deer is permissible according to God's Word.

YBIC

 

[fallen^sparrow]

I'm still waiting for the list of the "multitude" of predators that prey on deer to be submitted BLESSED.

So by your reasoning its OK or understandable for someone else to kill on your behalf ... but taking any personal responsibility regarding the realities of our current world is wrong? Going to the supermarket and picking up $1 of ground hamburger a very real percentage of that dollar went directly to the guy hefting the boltgun at the slaughterhouse. At that point you become a direct part of that predator/prey equation in my mind. If your going to get concerned over killing lets at least call a spade a spade. The mom pushing around the shopping cart in the meat department isn't any different then the hunter dressing out the deer in the field. Both are looking for food and in either case an animal died to satisfy that need. Whether or not there are 1 vs 10 people involved in the chain of events leading to the end result is irrelevant.

fallen^sparrow

 

[Beastt]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up....


Genesis 9:3
"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

If you'd read just three posts back from where you posted... and then again two posts above that.

How in the world could we live without meat...

(...snip)

Statistically, medically and biologically; Better, healthier -- and by many measures, happier.

 

[immersedingrace]

So by your reasoning its OK or understandable for someone else to kill on your behalf ... but taking any personal responsibility regarding the realities of our current world is wrong? Going to the supermarket and picking up $1 of ground hamburger a very real percentage of that dollar went directly to the guy hefting the boltgun at the slaughterhouse. At that point you become a direct part of that predator/prey equation in my mind. If your going to get concerned over killing lets at least call a spade a spade. The mom pushing around the shopping cart in the meat department isn't any different then the hunter dressing out the deer in the field. Both are looking for food and in either case an animal died to satisfy that need.Whether or not there are 1 vs 10 people involved in the chain of events leading to the end result is irrelevant. fallen^sparrow

Excellent point! There is NO difference. Despite all the cries that this is solely about Christians hunting, it comes down to this: To eat meat or NOT to eat meat. I have yet to see anyone here indicate that they hunt solely for the sport of it. IF that is the SOLE purpose of hunting, then Christians SHOULD NOT hunt. But, if they are hunting for food, whether or not they can get it elsewhere, then there is NO reason why they shouldn't hunt freely.

Having said that, I've done some research on the financial aspect of hunting vs. buying meat in the grocery store. Now, I'm sure that SOMEONE will pick on my choices for my figures, but they can take the time to come up with their own figures if they so choose!

For this, I assumed that the average meat eating family is made up of four people that eat ground meat (the cheapest beef I found) once a week, and chicken breast once a week over the period of a year. Now, according to www.eatright.com, a serving of meat or poultry is 3 oz.,but we all know, that MOST americans eat more than a regular serving of anything so I rounded their consumption up to the full pound/week instead of the 12 oz. that a family of four SHOULD be eating. With that assumed, this family will have eaten 104 lbs of meat by the end of the year.

I've used the following figures for the price of meat:

acmemarkets.com:

Chicken - $5.69/lb
Beef chuck Roast - $4.49/lb
Beef Rib Eye Roast -$8.99/lb
Ground Beef - $3.99/lb

Using just the Chicken and the ground beef We have the following:

Chicken - $5.69 X 52 (wks/year) = $207.48
Beef - $3.99 X 52 = $295.88
_______
$503.36 per year


I've used the following figures for hunting -
WalMart.com:
RIFLES -
single shot Winchester $798.66
lever browning $366.95
semi - auto henry us survival 22 - $136.04
bolt weatherby mark V $1,271.77
pump Taurus $201.47

$35.96 - $84.96/3 lbs of ammo

Bows - $18.98 - $240.04
Arrows (cabelas)- $119/12 arrows

Here we also need to make some assumptions. My dad has at least one gun that's 25 years old or more. We're going to assume one uses 3 lbs of ammo/year (if someone knows how much THEY use in a year, let me know, and I'll fix this) We're also going to assume that one kills 3 deer/ year and butcher their own kill. We'll use the most expensive figures from above.

$1,271.77 divided by 25 = $ 50.87/year
$84.96/year
___________
$135.83/year

We're going to assume that you use a bow for at least 10 years. Again,assuming the kill is 3 deer.

$240.04 divided by 10 = $ 24/year
$119/year
_________
$143/year

Now, using huntingnet.com, I've come up with the following:

A 55 lb live deer will yield approximately 28 lbs of edible meat. A 340 lb deer will yield about 153 lbs of edible meat.

28 lbs. X 3 = 84 lbs (more than HALF of the 104 lbs assumed from above)
153 lbs. X 3 = 459 lbs (more than 4 YEARS worth of meat or enough to share with THREE families of 4)

From my brother's, I know it doesn't cost more than about $50 (assume that's PER deer)to have someone else to butcher your deer, for a total of $275.83/year if you hunt with a gun OR $293/year if you hunt with a bow and arrow.

Since I live in Pennsylvania, we'll use the price of a hunting license here: http://www.theoutdoorshop.state.pa.us/FBG/game/GameLicenseInfo.asp?ShopperID=ECA3CBC38D334E259AE3925D1B59A05D

archery - $6.
hunting - $20

So, our grand totals for GUN hunting is $285.93/year and for archery $299/year. Even using the small yield of meat and adding an extra $100 (to purchase enough meat to total 104 lbs/year) for totals of $385.93/$399 (respectively) it's CHEAPER to HUNT!

PHEW!!! Knowing that I'm supposed to be a good steward of my money, I would have to say that I am DEFINITELY pro-hunting now! WHY would we PAY MORE money to buy from a grocery store, when we can go out and stock our freezers for a year?

Having said all that, those who want to argue about environmental impact of hunting can continue. There are different schools of thought on that, each school self-serving, and we'll never agree on it, but I'm convinced that hunting is OKAY for Christians based on the information above and what the bible has to say on the subject, which has been discussed before.

Having said all of that, I think I'll ask my dad to take me hunting next year....he'll be thrilled! My brother's have been trying to get me to use a gun since their beebie (?) gun days!

Blessings

 

[Beastt]

Excellent point! There is NO difference. Despite all the cries that this is solely about Christians hunting, it comes down to this: To eat meat or NOT to eat meat. I have yet to see anyone here indicate that they hunt solely for the sport of it. IF that is the SOLE purpose of hunting, then Christians SHOULD NOT hunt. But, if they are hunting for food, whether or not they can get it elsewhere, then there is NO reason why they shouldn't hunt freely.

Having said that, I've done some research on the financial aspect of hunting vs. buying meat in the grocery store. Now, I'm sure that SOMEONE will pick on my choices for my figures, but they can take the time to come up with their own figures if they so choose!

For this, I assumed that the average meat eating family is made up of four people that eat ground meat (the cheapest beef I found) once a week, and chicken breast once a week over the period of a year. Now, according to www.eatright.com, a serving of meat or poultry is 3 oz.,but we all know, that MOST americans eat more than a regular serving of anything so I rounded their consumption up to the full pound/week instead of the 12 oz. that a family of four SHOULD be eating. With that assumed, this family will have eaten 104 lbs of meat by the end of the year.

I've used the following figures for the price of meat:

acmemarkets.com:

Chicken - $5.69/lb
Beef chuck Roast - $4.49/lb
Beef Rib Eye Roast -$8.99/lb
Ground Beef - $3.99/lb

Using just the Chicken and the ground beef We have the following:

Chicken - $5.69 X 52 (wks/year) = $207.48
Beef - $3.99 X 52 = $295.88
_______
$503.36 per year


I've used the following figures for hunting -
WalMart.com:
RIFLES -
single shot Winchester $798.66
lever browning $366.95
semi - auto henry us survival 22 - $136.04
bolt weatherby mark V $1,271.77
pump Taurus $201.47

$35.96 - $84.96/3 lbs of ammo

Bows - $18.98 - $240.04
Arrows (cabelas)- $119/12 arrows

Here we also need to make some assumptions. My dad has at least one gun that's 25 years old or more. We're going to assume one uses 3 lbs of ammo/year (if someone knows how much THEY use in a year, let me know, and I'll fix this) We're also going to assume that one kills 3 deer/ year and butcher their own kill. We'll use the most expensive figures from above.

$1,271.77 divided by 25 = $ 50.87/year
$84.96/year
___________
$135.83/year

We're going to assume that you use a bow for at least 10 years. Again,assuming the kill is 3 deer.

$240.04 divided by 10 = $ 24/year
$119/year
_________
$143/year

Now, using huntingnet.com, I've come up with the following:

A 55 lb live deer will yield approximately 28 lbs of edible meat. A 340 lb deer will yield about 153 lbs of edible meat.

28 lbs. X 3 = 84 lbs (more than HALF of the 104 lbs assumed from above)
153 lbs. X 3 = 459 lbs (more than 4 YEARS worth of meat or enough to share with THREE families of 4)

From my brother's, I know it doesn't cost more than about $50 (assume that's PER deer)to have someone else to butcher your deer, for a total of $275.83/year if you hunt with a gun OR $293/year if you hunt with a bow and arrow.

Since I live in Pennsylvania, we'll use the price of a hunting license here: http://www.theoutdoorshop.state.pa.us/FBG/game/GameLicenseInfo.asp?ShopperID=ECA3CBC38D334E259AE3925D1B59A05D

archery - $6.
hunting - $20

So, our grand totals for GUN hunting is $285.93/year and for archery $299/year. Even using the small yield of meat and adding an extra $100 (to purchase enough meat to total 104 lbs/year) for totals of $385.93/$399 (respectively) it's CHEAPER to HUNT!

PHEW!!! Knowing that I'm supposed to be a good steward of my money, I would have to say that I am DEFINITELY pro-hunting now! WHY would we PAY MORE money to buy from a grocery store, when we can go out and stock our freezers for a year?

Having said all that, those who want to argue about environmental impact of hunting can continue. There are different schools of thought on that, each school self-serving, and we'll never agree on it, but I'm convinced that hunting is OKAY for Christians based on the information above and what the bible has to say on the subject, which has been discussed before.

Having said all of that, I think I'll ask my dad to take me hunting next year....he'll be thrilled! My brother's have been trying to get me to use a gun since their beebie (?) gun days!

Blessings

Of course each hunter can choose the most economical or least economical way to hunt. Not that I think the issue here should be cost, but apparently a lot of the statistics and calculations have already been done for us. And as I'm sure you suspect, immersedingrace, the figures I found tend to differ from the ones you put together. Obviously we're on different sides of the issue so this isn't to be unexpected.

Before I even say anything about the numbers I was able to find, I think we need to remember that there is a cost in cruelty, the belief that cruelty is okay to practice if it gets you something you want, (even if it's something you don't need) and that damage to the ecology is something we can shrug off as someone else's responsibility.

According to statistics released by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, there are about 14-million hunters in America. The total amount spent on hunting each year is 22.1 billion dollars which includes the cost of guns, ammunition, clothing, travel and other related expenses. If you average that out, each hunter pays $1,578.57 each year for the priviledge of denying another sentient being, (or beings), their right to live.

The University of Maryland's Extension Services tells us that hunters paid approximately 51 million dollars to kill 46,317 deer in 1990. That averages out to around $1,100 per deer. They assume an average of 45-pounds of meat from each deer and calculate the cost of a pound of venison to be $24.44.
http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/hunting/learn_the_facts_about_hunting.html

http://www.vegetarianteen.com/articles/huntheaven.shtml
(Yes, I'm aware that the second site is pro vegetarian. They didn't calculate the figures. Their sources are clearly supplied as above.)

It may also be noteworthy that Americans consume approximately 235 pounds of meat per person, per year as opposed to the 26 pounds used in your estimate. I understand that your figures are based on a slightly buffered representation of what some consider to be a healthy amount, rather than what people actually consume.
http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cach...onandConsumption.pdf++"meat+per+person"&hl=en

David Suzuki, (the guy who does narration for the Nature series), places the actual consumption at 220 pounds of meat per person, per year as an overall average for the U.S., Canada and Australia combined.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/WOL/Challenge/Meals.asp

If all of that were venison at the cost calculated by the University of Maryland's Extension Services, that family of four would be spending $21,507.20 annually for meat.

 

[Lauren94]

it depens on the reson

 

[immersedingrace]

David Suzuki, (the guy who does narration for the Nature series), places the actual consumption at 220 pounds of meat per person, per year as an overall average for the U.S., Canada and Australia combined.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/WOL/Challenge/Meals.asp

If all of that were venison at the cost calculated by the University of Maryland's Extension Services, that family of four would be spending $21,507.20 annually for meat.

Ok, I'll take your statistics. HOWEVER, I was not talking about what people DO spend, that's their business. I'm talking basics. The very basic expenses of hunting v. the very basic expenses of purchasing meat at the store. There are people who choose and can afford to eat out at a restaurant everyday of the week during any given year. That is their CHOICE. There are people, like my oldest brother, who take elaborate hunting trips and spend thousands of dollars to hunt each year. That is their CHOICE. I'm not making the claim that people don't do that. And, I'm not making the claim that people NEVER hunt just for the sport of it. HOWEVER, my claim is that, when it comes down to the very basics, IF you eat what you kill, it shouldn't matter whether you CHOOSE to hunt or not. It's legal. It's biblically sanctioned (please, no more about slavery - or anything else- being biblically sanctioned, etc. etc. as has been pointed out more than once, this thread is about HUNTING not SLAVERY). It's fun. It provides recreation.

If, however, we use your stats regarding the ACTUAL consumption of meat as 220 lbs. /person/year we have the following:

Grocery purchase
Ground Beef - $3.99 X 220 = $877.80. By the way, the 2002 Consumer Expenditures report compiled by the U.S Department of Labor ( http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann02.pdf) claims that the average family of 2.5 people spent $798 on meats, poultry, fish, and eggs (now don't know what the actually EGG expenditure was, but I'm sure someone who disagrees with me will find it), and $2,276 in meals away from home (irrelevant actually, but thought I'd throw it in for fun).

That's even MORE significant when compared to my figures for the cost of hunting, which STILL comes to a grand total of $293/year at it's very basic.
Take notice that the Gov't uses the average of 2.5 people/family while I use 4 people. IF we were to double theirs and add a person to mine (just to make my math easier) we have a 2002 expenditure of $1596 ($798 X 2) to PURCHASE meat and STILL have a lower 2005 expenditure, equalling $366.25 ($293 divided by 4 = $73.25; Then take $293 + $73.25 for the additional person) to hunt.

Those who CHOOSE to purchase the most expensive gun, the most elaborate equipment, get multiple licenses, travel to remote areas etc. etc. may do so. It's their money, let them do it and it's none of our business. Provided they CONSUME their kill or donate it for other's to consume it shouldn't matter. It's the same as for those who CHOOSE to eat out at restaurants.

As for the assertion that hunting is cruel, that's a personal opinion which I and other's do not share.

As for the ecology, again, there are "experts" on both sides of the issue who will come up with conflicting results depending on the bias they are trying to create. I happen to be on the side that says hunting helps control the deer population. Other's are on the side that says hunting harms our environment. That's not going to change.

I also don't think this should be about cost, but there are many who posted that say hunting shouldn't occur because food can be purchased at the store. My intent, is to show that it's CHEAPER to hunt than to purchase meat at the grocery. Therefore, if people CHOOSE to hunt, they shouldn't be looked down on because they've chosen a cheaper option OR because they've decided to hunt for recreation and the BENEFIT is a lower food bill. Although, I would concede that the latter group of hunters would be the group that would spend the most on guns, ammo, elaborate trips, equipment, etc. therby erasing any monetary savings, but again, that's not any of our business.

Blessings

 

[corvus_corax]

HOWEVER, my claim is that, when it comes down to the very basics, IF you eat what you kill, it shouldn't matter whether you CHOOSE to hunt or not. It's legal. It's biblically sanctioned (please, no more about slavery - or anything else- being biblically sanctioned, etc. etc. as has been pointed out more than once, this thread is about HUNTING not SLAVERY).<snip>Provided they CONSUME their kill or donate it for other's to consume it shouldn't matter. It's the same as for those who CHOOSE to eat out at restaurants.

Spot on immersedingrace! I think it was pointed out earlier (I havent read every post, but I read through them) that, fundamentally, whether you hunt for your food or buy it from a store, you are responsible for the death of that animal either directly or indirectly. Period.

As for the assertion that hunting is cruel, that's a personal opinion which I and other's do not share.

I would concede that hunting can be cruel, not that it inherently is cruel. If cruelty is part of the argument, one should take a look at PETA's statistics and reports (Im not a PETA supporter, Im just saying that they have loads of evidence pointing to animal cruely in the mass-slaughter process that brings meat to the store and restaurant)

I also don't think this should be about cost, but there are many who posted that say hunting shouldn't occur because food can be purchased at the store.

That seems a strange argument - "One shouldnt hunt because one can cause the death of animals simply by purchasing meat at the store"
Odd that.
(not directed at immersedingrace, rather supporting his statement)

 

[Beastt]

Ok, I'll take your statistics. HOWEVER, I was not talking about what people DO spend, that's their business. I'm talking basics. The very basic expenses of hunting v. the very basic expenses of purchasing meat at the store. There are people who choose and can afford to eat out at a restaurant everyday of the week during any given year. That is their CHOICE.

The very first line of my post; "Of course each hunter can choose the most economical or least economical way to hunt."

IF you eat what you kill, it shouldn't matter whether you CHOOSE to hunt or not.

I've never understood the "eat what you kill" argument. I understand that people like to reduce this topic to waste verses use, but they would be horrified if anyone suggested the same kind of values when it came to killing humans. I also know people like to make a distinction when it comes to humans verses other animals because they believe that humans have a soul and animals don't. They continue with this argument despite the fact that there is not a single shred of evidence to support this, (other than the Bible which makes so many ludicrous claims it's amazing anyone can read it without dying of laughter. Some of these claims are universally recognized as so wrong that you even requested that people not mention some of them). But, for a moment let's say this is true - humans have souls, animals don't. Okay fine. How does that logically result in the idea that it's okay to kill animals and not okay to kill humans, (even if you intend to eat them)? If an animal doesn't have a soul, this is the only life it will ever know. If we deprive them of that life, that's it. If a human does have a soul then when you kill a human, you're really just moving them from one level of life to another. The human lives on so the loss is hardly comparable to that of the killed animal. Personally, I find no compelling reason to believe that any animals have souls, humans included. But if humans have souls and animals don't, we should be all the more careful not to deprive animals of the one and only life they are capable of living.

It's legal.

Well, here we go again. People don't like my argument that "thou shalt not murder" would allow man to create all of his own laws concerning the taking of life, and God is just hunky-dorey with it. But then we say that hunting is legal, so there should be no problem with it. In Las Vegas prostitution is legal. Adultery is legal in many areas, (though not Biblically sanctioned).

It's biblically sanctioned (please, no more about slavery - or anything else- being biblically sanctioned, etc. etc. as has been pointed out more than once, this thread is about HUNTING not SLAVERY). It's fun. It provides recreation.

Does it not strike you as a bit of a double-standard to claim that hunting is Biblically sanctioned, which has been debated repeatedly on this thread, then ask that others not respond with examples of other Biblically sanctioned practices which we automatically accept as wrong, and make the request on the basis that it's already been mentioned? The "hunting not slavery" comment is a poor argument when you are talking about the Bible and legalities rather than hunting. If you can use the Bible to support hunting, then why is it wrong to show what else the Bible sanctions?

But, I'll respect your wishes. The thread, at it's base level is about cruelty -- the cruelty involved in hunting.

It's fun? I should hope that most people, especially Christians would have some kind of violent psychological reaction to the statement that killing is fun. Obviously, this isn't always the case, but it's a horrifying statement, to those of us who don't allow our denial to cover the bloodlust involved with making such a statement. Think about the pictures of the smiling American soldiers standing over the lifeless bodies in the Abu Ghraib scandal. How hard is it to imagine the caption, "Killing is fun", below those photos? Finding enjoyment in the killing of another sentient being is a dangerous sign. The fact that it's relatively common shouldn't make people dismiss it as harmless. The ability to take the life of an animal and consider it just a form of entertainment puts you that much closer to being able to take the life of a human. This is recognized by a number of experts in both criminology and psychology. Listed among them is John Douglas, the FBI profiler of serial killers, upon whom the character was developed for the movie, The Silence of the Lambs. Killing shouldn't be fun. It should instill an instant reaction of horror and disgust. If you think killing things constitutes holsom recreation and a "good time", seek help.

If, however, we use your stats regarding the ACTUAL consumption of meat as 220 lbs. /person/year we have the following:

As a minor point, they're not my stats. They're real numbers obtained by real research. I didn't sit down and make them up which the posted sites prove.

Ground Beef - $3.99 X 220 = $877.80. By the way, the 2002 Consumer Expenditures report compiled by the U.S Department of Labor ( http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann02.pdf) claims that the average family of 2.5 people spent $798 on meats, poultry, fish, and eggs (now don't know what the actually EGG expenditure was, but I'm sure someone who disagrees with me will find it), and $2,276 in meals away from home (irrelevant actually, but thought I'd throw it in for fun).

That's even MORE significant when compared to my figures for the cost of hunting, which STILL comes to a grand total of $293/year at it's very basic.

I find it appropriate to consider what people actually spend rather than a rough collection of figures designed to show the minimum expenditure. If we're going for the absolute minimum, I spend $0.00 each year on hunting and because I choose not to seek alternative sources of meat, my medical expenditures are also far below average. If you reduce the points of the debate to cost, hunting still loses.

If you consider an average expediture of over $1,500 and then claim that some spend no more than $293, that means many are spending way more than the $1,500 to balance the average.

Though you showed a great deal of tenacity in collecting your figures for the cost of hunting, you neglected to include most of the things hunters insist on having for their hunting trips. I simply find the costs as calculated by organizations who have the research to back their findings to be more credible. I know a few hunters in this area who aren't exactly affluent and claim that they need the meat. Most of them use hunting as an excuse when they buy new boots, camo jackets and pants, caps, hydration packs and most of their camping gear. Your minimalist numbers may be something close to accurate, but they're nowhere close to reality.

Those who CHOOSE to purchase the most expensive gun, the most elaborate equipment, get multiple licenses, travel to remote areas etc. etc. may do so. It's their money, let them do it and it's none of our business. Provided they CONSUME their kill or donate it for other's to consume it shouldn't matter. It's the same as for those who CHOOSE to eat out at restaurants.

Those who choose not to include cruelty on their plates spend the least, and remain the healthiest. And what others do concerning the killing of wildlife is our business. Wildlife isn't their exclusive property. If we have to reduce this to the level of property, (which is as wrong as slavery), then wildlife belongs to everyone. When someone hunts and kills an animal, the rest of us are deprived of the beauty and excitement of seeing that animal in the wild. While some may show no concern, I consider that to be a great loss from both my perspective and the animal's perspective. I'm not alone in that feeling of loss and sadness.

As for the assertion that hunting is cruel, that's a personal opinion which I and other's do not share.

How can you argue that it's not cruel? Animals are clearly every bit as sentient as humans. This isn't personal opinion, it's clear, logical fact. Their nervous systems are just as developed. They feel pain just as acutely and their will to live is certainly just as strong, perhaps even stronger. By your contention, they have no afterlife so they struggle with every fiber of their bodies to hold on to the one life they have. But they have little chance against the hunter's gun which can slam a 165 grain bullet through their vital organs, splintering bones and shreading arteries with 1,465 foot-pounds of force from several hundred yards away.

Cruelty is no more a matter of opinion in this case than it is in the case of school yard shootings. The needless taking of life is cruelty plain and simple and there exists not a single argument of any credibility to suggest otherwise. Deciding not to acknowledge the animal's suffering doesn't make it suffer any less.

As for the ecology, again, there are "experts" on both sides of the issue who will come up with conflicting results depending on the bias they are trying to create. I happen to be on the side that says hunting helps control the deer population. Other's are on the side that says hunting harms our environment. That's not going to change.

It's not really even an argument, immersedingrace. It's just a fact. You can't reduce the population of predators to a degree that affects the population of prey animals without harming the ecology. The very fact that the population of prey animals rises, is a demonstration of the damage. We've heard over and over that the reduction of predator species leads to overpopulation of prey species. That, in itself, is damage to the ecology. And despite claims to the contrary, the slightest bit of logic makes it obvious that turning your guns on the prey animals doesn't restore balance. Again, this isn't a simple see-saw with only two sides. It's a multifaceted, extremely complex interaction among every aspect of the environment. The only thing that can restore balance is to do our best to undo the original damage by restoring the predator population. Anything else only further damages the natural balance. Suggesting that flocking into the wilderness with four-wheel drive pickups, setting up campsites and slaughtering the wildlife left is good for the ecology is a claim made only by those who think killing is fun and those who make their living from those who enjoy killing so much that they'll pay to do it. Every "expert" who claims that hunting is an ecological positive, either enjoys killing or profits financially from hunting. Most of these claims are made by agencies having fiscal budgets which rely on the income from hunting.

I also don't think this should be about cost, but there are many who posted that say hunting shouldn't occur because food can be purchased at the store. My intent, is to show that it's CHEAPER to hunt than to purchase meat at the grocery. Therefore, if people CHOOSE to hunt, they shouldn't be looked down on because they've chosen a cheaper option OR because they've decided to hunt for recreation and the BENEFIT is a lower food bill. Although, I would concede that the latter group of hunters would be the group that would spend the most on guns, ammo, elaborate trips, equipment, etc. therby erasing any monetary savings, but again, that's not any of our business.

We are in agreement that those who used the argument of cheap meat at the store have a poor argument to make.
I'm impressed with your tenacity in chasing down the figures for yourself and your figures do show a significant savings through hunting as compared to purchasing flesh already butchered. But I also find your figures to be so substantially distant from published figures as to be highly questionable.

I have several hobbies, one of which is cycling. If I calculate the cost of one bike, then add in riding shoes, gloves and a helmet, I can get out on the road for about $1275 and have decent equipment. But to make this claim for any moderately dedicated cyclist is an extreme misrepresentation. Cyclists, like most hunters, aren't satisfied with "decent" equipment. It's a hobby and as such it's undertaken with a great deal of enthusiasm. How many hunters shoot from iron sights in the field? How many are walking around in 10-year old boots, jeans and a reasonable jacket and cap? Most have at least one full set of clothing just for hunting. A set which includes extra warm socks, hiking boots, camouflaged pants, jacket, vest and cap, sunglasses and a pack for carrying field glasses, spotting scope, calls, scents, knife, GPS devices and a long, long list of other expensive toys to help them enjoy their hobby to the fullest. How many own just one hunting rifle?

It's the same as with my hobby; two mountain bikes, three road bikes, five helmets, nine wheelsets, forty-two riding jerseys, 15 pair of riding shorts, four pair of riding shoes, floor pump, portable pump, spare tubes, patch kits, etc., etc., etc. I don't ride to save money. I ride to ride. And people don't hunt to save money although they often do claim that the meat is cheaper. Then they use that claim to justify the purchase of every new bit of hunting equipment they can squeeze into the back of their four-wheel drive pickup which they had to have, despite the higher insurance and maintenance costs because it's for hunting. The difference between cycling and hunting is that I don't require that another sentient being die for my enjoyment.