Stop the Cruel Practice of Children Killing Feral Pigs in FL

By PETA , People for Ethical Treatment of Animals - October 23, 2009

Icoemail3
Comments(15) | (0)
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.
This content is inappropriate
Loading

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:


Regarding Article
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.

  • SolarSanitizer
    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.

    - SolarSanitizerUS October 23, 2009 3:40PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • jordon
      Reply

      I think the point was that the young hunters were more likely to cause the pigs excessive pain.

      - jordonUS October 23, 2009 4:00PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • SolarSanitizer
        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.

        - SolarSanitizerUS October 23, 2009 4:21PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • jordon
          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?

          - jordonUS October 23, 2009 11:45PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • SolarSanitizer
            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.)

            - SolarSanitizerUS October 24, 2009 3:54AM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • jordon
              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.

              - jordonUS October 24, 2009 9:26AM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • SolarSanitizer
                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?

                - SolarSanitizerUS October 24, 2009 10:16AM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • SolarSanitizer
            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.

            - SolarSanitizerUS October 24, 2009 3:56AM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • jordon
              Whats the difference

              Ok, that makes a little more sense. What is the morally relevant difference in your view?

              - jordonUS October 24, 2009 9:15AM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • SolarSanitizer
                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.

                - SolarSanitizerUS October 24, 2009 10:12AM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

See Related...