Compassionate Florida residents have contacted
PETA about reports that
the Southwest Florida Water Management District is using lethal methods
to control feral hogs in Manatee County. Our callers tell us not only
that the county is massacring feral hogs but also that
juveniles between the ages of 8 and 16 are the ones who are wielding the guns!Gunning
down feral hogs is cruel enough, but putting rifles in the hands of
kids is a recipe for disaster. Novice hunters often merely wound their
targets, and the
animals'
deaths can be slow and painful. Mass killings
also tear apart families, leaving young and weak animals vulnerable to
starvation, dehydration, and predators.
Furthermore, lethal methods of wildlife control don't work in the long run.
As long as the areas of concern remain attractive and accessible to
these animals, more will move in from surrounding areas to fill the
newly vacant niche. In addition, killing individuals can result in a
spike in the
food supply and prompt remaining females to breed, causing
the population to increase.
Please politely urge
Southwest Florida Water Management District officials to halt all hunts
that allow children—or anyone—to kill feral hogs in Manatee County and
push for long-term feral hog–management methods that are more effective
and humane.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
OPINION: Stop the Cruel Practice of Children Killing Feral Pigs in FL
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
About your "recipe for disaster".
Were any children hurt or killed?
No.
Your opinion is unfounded, then. The instances of supervised teens having hunting accidents are few and far between. Not looking both ways is far more dangerous.
- SolarSanitizer
October 23, 2009 3:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reply
I think the point was that the young hunters were more likely to cause the pigs excessive pain.
- jordon
October 23, 2009 4:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not likely.
"Gunning down feral hogs is cruel enough, but putting rifles in the hands of kids is a recipe for disaster."
That would make the sentence repetitive. It was an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy.
- SolarSanitizer
October 23, 2009 4:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reply
They then went on to say why having novice hunters kill the pigs is more cruel than having older people do it.
"Novice hunters often merely wound their targets, and the animals ' deaths can be slow and painful."
Just out of curiosity, I remember in our discussion a while ago you said something to the effect of us not having to be consistent in our moral reasoning. I've been thinking about it and am wondering if that is really what you meant. Were you really challenging that we should treat like cases similarly, arguably the basis of moral logic, or did I misunderstand you?
- jordon
October 23, 2009 11:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I see what you are saying.
In order for that to be true, kids would have to be, as a group, poor marksmen. If they are any good at shooting , then the only possible meaning of the phrase, "putting rifles in the hands of kids is a recipe for disaster". would be that they could injure themselves or others.
So, are all teens terrible shots? Or is PETA engaging in an appeal to emotion again. (They do it every time.)
- SolarSanitizer
October 24, 2009 3:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Another reply
I think PETA is saying that young hunters are probably worse shots than more experienced hunters. I don't have any idea if every 8-16 year old there is a bad marksman but it seems pretty plausible they are worse than older, more experienced hunters. I think this interpretation makes more sense as they then went on to describe how animals often animals suffer when novice hunters only wound them, with a bad shot instead of killing them. I think if they had meant it as saying that kids would be hurt they would of went on to describe something more to that effect.
- jordon
October 24, 2009 9:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I can follow that logic as well
But it is based on a false foundation. There is no good reason to believe that a teenager is usually a bad shot. Just as there is no reason to believe that an adult is a good shot. For a person to become a good shot, some practice is needed. Why do we automatically accept that young people cannot practice?
- SolarSanitizer
October 24, 2009 10:16AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Consistency.
Sure, we should be consistent in our moral reasonings. I just do not find killing a deer consistent with killing a man.
They are not like cases. That is my challenge. There is a huge difference.
- SolarSanitizer
October 24, 2009 3:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Whats the difference
Ok, that makes a little more sense. What is the morally relevant difference in your view?
- jordon
October 24, 2009 9:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My belief.
I believe it is wrong to kill people as one would kill an animal.
I look at the reasons I would kill an animal, then apply those reasons to my fellow man.
First and foremost, I would kill an animal to eat. It is survival. I would not kill a man to eat, unless I was given no other choice.
Second, I would kill an animal to feed my family.
After that, things get fuzzy-
I would kill both a man or an animal that intended, and was able, to kill me or my family. Since I would kill neither man nor animal for pleasure, the moral difference is a matter of self-preservation in the form of sustenance.
- SolarSanitizer
October 24, 2009 10:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.