Should humans still be hunting Animals?

[Crandar]

The original discussion of implementing some sort of Gun Control in the US, raised the issues of:

Should humans still be hunting animals for sport or food?

What is involved in the different types of hunting?

How has hunting been effected in countries that already have some type of gun control or how might hunting might be impacted when some sort of gun controls would be implemented in other countries?
(Note that this last discussion option is included in this topic only to discuss how hunting might be effected and is not an invitation to discuss IF gun control should be implemented. This is also not a political debate about counties or their curren tgun control laws. If we fail the test of adhering to these limitations, this segment of the discussion will be removed so the other portions may proceed.)



Here are just a selected few of the previous comments that focused on these issues:

Originally posted by Ferrets54+Apr 9 2005, 05:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (Ferrets54 &#064; Apr 9 2005, 05:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ... I see nothing wrong with responsible hunting and gun sports, but this does not really mean that people should have a given right to weapons. [/b]

Originally posted by Hamelkart@Apr 9 2005, 10:33 AM
Responsible hunting?&#33;
Let me tell you something... Hunting was a way to survive in prehistory, later it became sport but it was still quite challenging because only bows and arrows were use.
But explain to me: where is the challenge in killing a deer from 1oo meters with a modern rifle?
Besides, don&#39;t you think the animals have the right to live, too?

Originally posted by King_Azzole@Apr 9 2005, 10:35 AM
Their right to live is only as strong as their ability to run, and any regulations we place to limit them from becomming extinct.*
I love hunting, and it has nothing to do with the challenge. It has to do with the feeling of mastery over nature, the great time you have with friends and family while doing it, and the rush of being able to kill another living creature without having to worry about breaking laws or hurting another human.* Not to mention some game animals like Deer taste damn good, much better then beef.

Originally posted by Corporal Hicks@Apr 10 2005, 12:40 PM
... Its not as easy as you think. Animals arent stupid and are superior in thier natural environment they can see better (turkey) and smell better (Deer) than a human, ... So don&#39;t say its easy if you have never done it. Its not easy, and it&#39;s not for people who think it is.

Originally posted by Smack@Apr 10 2005, 02:07 PM
Hunting is a multi-faceted activity. Some people do it to be quiet in nature. Some to get to know the animals. Some for food. Some for the challenge. There are 100&#39;s of reasons, not just the game of actually hitting an animal with a bullet.

<!--QuoteBegin-Corporal Hicks@Apr 10 2005, 08:34 PM
people dont seem to understand that it&#39;s more than walking outside and throwing some lead around and picking up a carcass. there is alot of dedication needed. You must scout the animals, track the animals, predict the animals, blend in with the environment and finaly, if your lucky enough shoot AT the animals. I say AT because at this point your pretty excited and jumpy missing is a part of hunting. [/quote]

[RusskiSoldat]

Should humans still be hunting animals for sport or food?

Not to veer this off topic I&#39;ll say yes for both, unless it&#39;s and endangered species.

What is involved in the different types of hunting?

Obviously all come down to killing the animal(or in some rare cases capturing). Methods to do so and uses for the dead animal vary greatly.

How has hunting been effected in countries that already have some type of gun control or how might hunting might be impacted when some sort of gun controls would be implemented in other countries?

Even if hunting is affected as to become less convenient, it is no longer necessarry but just entertainment (for the most part) and so it isn&#39;t a problem. Safety is more important than entertainment.

[Francisco Montana]

I&#39;ll take mine medium-rare, thank you&#33;&#33;&#33;

[hormiga]

I could be wrong but the vast majority of hunting is done for food as well as sport. All the hunters I know eat what they kill. I am pretty sure the days of big game hunting (solely for the purpose of trophies) is a thing of the past.

Also I need to point out to the "gun control" crowd that hunting is very regulated in the US (which arguably has the least invasive gun laws and regulations). Hunters are only allowed to use certain guns or in some cases required to use bows to hunt animals. It varies from state to state but you are resctricted in what you can use to kill and how many animals you can kill...

Anyway my point is that "gun control" does not really correllate well with "hunting regulations".

I am not a hunter and will never be one but hunting for food is almost a requirement for some animals (ex deer) that experience over population if they are not culled. (This of course is due to the fact that large predators have been eliminated /reduced by humans).

So basically I agree with hunting as long as all kills are eaten and populations are managed /monitored.

[OTZ]

heck, i think hunting certain animals (and subsequent killing thereof) is far more humane than what goes on at your local slaughterhouse.

i support hunting for sustanence/necessity, and even sport hunting as long as the victim is consumed.

i cant say i am too fond of hunting for the mere "sport" of it - ie, for trophies, but i defnitely don&#39;t think it should be banned.

[Perkele]

The one thing that the "OMG it&#39;s so primitive to kill animals&#33;" crowd usually forgets, is that if those animals are not killed then they will multiply and multiply and multiply and so forth. And if they don&#39;t have natural predators they will multiply until they run out of food, which means that they&#39;ve eaten EVERYTHING. This in turn means lot&#39;s of dead animals as there is no food, and as most of the food is trees/grass etc. this means the ecosystem is completely destroyed.
In one part of USA they killed of most of the coytes, lynx etc. and the amount of elks in that area &#39;exploded&#39;, only for a few years thought. If I recall correctly, it was something around 50 000, grew to over 100 000 and then as there was no longer any food and most of the nature eaten it dropped to around 20 000, which it still is.

Also if deers, elks etc wouldn&#39;t be hunted and their amount would be allowed to say double, then what you see is also increase in the amount of car crashes they cause. Thus, do you want to see dead animals or dead people?


And just for the record, I am not a hunter. Though I do love meat...maybe I should start hunting...

[Boudicca]

Perkele I think is absolutely right.

We - humans - at least where I live - have created the necessity to continue hunting by ourselves.

For example: By killing all wolves and animals that are potentially dangerous for humans we have left our woods with only deer and wild pigs. Consequence: Not hunting them leads to an explosion of their population. Especially wild pigs have been conquering suburbs lately. In doing so, they transport a number of viruses etc..., not to mention that wild sow with her little piggies can get pretty dangerous if finding herself in a pedestrian area of a city...

Damn thing and difficult to correct. Currently, hardly any option than hunting.

@perkele: the car crashing argument is a bit dubious I think..those poor elks...

[Zhuge89]

I&#39;m waiting for some moronic PETA supporter to come in.

[Francisco Montana]

On Perkely&#39;s note.... When&#39;s the last time you saw a herd of &#39;wild&#39; cows?

They only exsist for consumption. Think about it.

[hormiga]

Originally posted by Lord Alameda@Apr 18 2005, 02:25 PM
On Perkely&#39;s note.... When&#39;s the last time you saw a herd of &#39;wild&#39; cows?

They only exsist for consumption. Think about it.

Actually they exist (just like other living things) to reproduce, inevitably they would go feral if they were allowed to do so. I think there are some wild cattle in England, not to mention herd animals in Africa that are similar to domestic cattle.

This brings up the interesting point of who is using who: cattle are exploited by humans as food/clothing material but they have ensured that they will survive (genetically) and be very well taken care since they are important to us as food. Sure cattle get killed but they fair better than most other animals that come in contact with humans.

[Augustine]

Did you know that on corporate cattle farms, every part of the cow is used? Just like the Indians supposedly did.

Meat and organs are eaten.
Bones are ground up for various chemical uses.
Inedible and waste parts are ground up and used in fertilizer or animal feed.

Cattle farming is one of the most efficient businesses in existance. I&#39;m proud to eat beef, because I know that the animal wasn&#39;t sacrificed for nothing. It gave it&#39;s life so we may eat.

Hunting is great fun, but you should always eat the animal after you&#39;re done with it.

[Shawkhan]

...Hunting is about the only practical way to control populations of game animals. Allowing predators to multiply doesn&#39;t/won&#39;t work until/unless someone comes up with a way to train predators to only hunt and kill game animals. In parts of the U.S. such as around Yellowstone National Park, wolves and grizzly bears have been allowed to reproduce. Naturally they don&#39;t respect the Park boundaries and think nothing of killing the cattle and sheep of nearby ranchers. In California and Colorado, cougars(mountain lions) have made such a startling comeback that they are a threat to humans, several pople having already been attacked/killed. Allowing predators to interact around people doesn&#39;t work.
...Hunting of game animals I believe should take into account modern sensibilities as far as morality is concerned. I believe in &#39;harvesting&#39; game animals as humanely as possible. People who recommend using primitive weapons, i.e. bows and arrows/spears, etc. I don&#39;t think are thinking the matter through. Modern firearms are the most humane way to kill game animals quickly and without drawn-out suffering. Of the dozens of large game animals I have personally killed, only two have required a second shot to ensure a quick kill. A bow and arrow can generally take a half hour or longer for the animal to &#39;bleed-out&#39;, which I find unconscionable. A bow and arrow works fine on small game such as rabbits, killing cleanly with a solid hit, but there are more appropriate methods for larger animals.
...Sadly enough, there are still trophy hunters in the world. These are generally rich or well-to-do people who want to &#39;buy&#39; the death of some large animal to enhance their own image of self-worth. They seldom work very hard at hunting, generally led up to a pre-selected animal and allowed a &#39;shot&#39;. Generally a professional hunter will make a finishing shot as the part-time hunter often merely wounds or even completely misses his shot. Reminds me of that Van Damme movie where rich people pay for the chance to hunt people. Sometimes I think it is a sad world we live in.

[hormiga]

Originally posted by Shawkhan@Apr 18 2005, 03:10 PM
...Hunting is about the only practical way to control populations of game animals. Allowing predators to multiply doesn&#39;t/won&#39;t work until/unless someone comes up with a way to train predators to only hunt and kill game animals. In parts of the U.S. such as around Yellowstone National Park, wolves and grizzly bears have been allowed to reproduce. Naturally they don&#39;t respect the Park boundaries and think nothing of killing the cattle and sheep of nearby ranchers. In California and Colorado, cougars(mountain lions) have made such a startling comeback that they are a threat to humans, several pople having already been attacked/killed. Allowing predators to interact around people doesn&#39;t work.

Ok just to play the devil advocate of sorts.

First off, wolf/bear/lion attacks are VERY VERY VERY rare in the US. Probably due to the fact that these animals are rare but also due to the fact that most animals are wary around humans. Even if you enter areas with lots of large predators attacks are rare. Your average predator is noctural and does not normally attack a human (basically a larger, taller, noisier animal)

Also there is the "wild predators are killin&#39; my sheep&#33;" myth. This might have been the case a few hundred years ago but it is certainly not the case now.

Human and other large predators typically do fine as long as people dont feed or attempt to mess with them.

Saying that mountain lions are a THREAT TO HUMANS is a huge overstatement and totally incorrect. It also shows that media hype has influenced your views more than reality. Im not trying to flame you but if you are gonig to make a statement like that you need to be prepared to defend it or back it up somehow.

[Torment]

I, for one, am against practically every form of hunting. IMO it should only be done when absolutely necessary, when it is the main source of food for example. But if it is not necessary, then I don&#39;t find hunting acceptable, even if you eat the dead animal afterwards (worthless excuse if you ask me). Normally hunting is for nothing else then fun, and if you find it fun to kill living creatures for no reason at all, then I suggest you buy either a videogame or you join the army (though most hunters probable wouldn&#39;t have the guts for that, since they&#39;ll be shooting at things that can actually defend themselves).
Now, about the killing of animals to control the equilibrium in the animal kingdom, most of the time that is also a louzy excuse to have some fun killing animals. It should be tried by restoring the equilibrium, by reintroducing predators. Only if the situation has gotten out of hand so badly that it can&#39;t be controlled anymore, we should be allowed to kill them. And even then, it should be done by park rangers and not by hunters.

I&#39;m waiting for some moronic PETA supporter to come in.

And I&#39;m waiting for you to get your warning level raised for trolling.

[hormiga]

Originally posted by Torment@Apr 18 2005, 03:31 PM
I, for one, am against practically every form of hunting. IMO it should only be done when absolutely necessary, when it is the main source of food for example. But if it is not necessary, then I don&#39;t find hunting acceptable, even if you eat the dead animal afterwards (worthless excuse if you ask me).

Finally a counter point shows up&#33;

I take it you are a vegan than? Because if you do not support hunting than surely you are against all other forms of animal containment/utilization.

Now, about the killing of animals to control the equilibrium in the animal kingdom, most of the time that is also a louzy excuse to have some fun killing animals. It should be tried by restoring the equilibrium, by reintroducing predators. Only if the situation has gotten out of hand so badly that it can&#39;t be controlled anymore, we should be allowed to kill them. And even then, it should be done by park rangers and not by hunters.

It is extremely difficult to reintroduce predators (4 year biology degree + some experience and I know many wildlife biologists, so I am not talking out my butt here). In many cases it is just not possible. Animals populations do benefit from predation (and it doesnt matter if it is human or wolves or whatever).

In the real world this is how it works: if the animal problem is too bad than rangers will allow hunters in, this is just plain common sense and has nothing to do with "thrill killing" (which you are implying). Also when hunters are brought in those hunters eat the kills where as a ranger is more likely to simply dispose of the kills.

Normally hunting is for nothing else then fun, and if you find it fun to kill living creatures for no reason at all, then I suggest you buy either a videogame or you join the army (though most hunters probable wouldn&#39;t have the guts for that, since they&#39;ll be shooting at things that can actually defend themselves).

And I&#39;m waiting for you to get your warning level raised because of trolling.

If you drop the hostile attitude (I know that wasnt directed at me) and ignore the trolls we might actually have a decent discussion here. I have known lots and lots of hunters... some certainly are rednecks that just enjoy killing stuff, but for the most part they are intelligent people that are more concerned about the environment than you average joe.

[Perkele]

And I&#39;m waiting for you to get your warning level raised for trolling.

I have the urge to report you myself;

though most hunters probable wouldn&#39;t have the guts for that, since they&#39;ll be shooting at things that can actually defend themselves.

This comment is totally unaccetable and as close to trolling as one can get.

[Crandar]

Yes, all the little digs and defenseless moron coward trolls can cease and you may all return to discussing the topic. Trolling for PETA fanatics is the same as Trolling for bubba&#39;s so now that you ahve all detected where the acceptable limits of the discussion will be, standa back away from the electric fences and avoid suffering long term scarring events.

[Francisco Montana]

Originally posted by hormiga@Apr 18 2005, 01:32 PM
...inevitably they would go feral if they were allowed to do so. I think there are some wild cattle in England, not to mention herd animals in Africa that are similar to domestic cattle.

I agree totally with your post bud. One thing on this part here though, I knew that would come...hehe. It&#39;s true there are some species similar to domestic cattle. But, in all reality, in the United States and probably all of N. America on a whole, cattle, as we know it, would not exist without man&#39;s interfernece.

The rest of your post basically backs that up for me. So not a dissagreement, just a clearification

Peace.

[Torment]

Finally a counter point shows up&#33;

I take it you are a vegan than? Because if you do not support hunting than surely you are against all other forms of animal containment/utilization.

No, ironically I am not. It is the purpose that counts for me, not the morals itself. Cows etc are there to be bred and to serve as human food, how sad it might be, that is their purpose in life. Humans need to eat to. Now, this killing is necessary, because it grants us the food we need to survive. Hunting wild animals is nothing else then wasting life, since we dont need the animals for food nor do we need them for anything else. I think we should respect those animals we don&#39;t need, charish them and observe their beauty. But instead of that, we tend to blast their brains out, just to show how big and tough we are. Drives me insane&#33;

It is extremely difficult to reintroduce predators (4 year biology degree + some experience and I know many wildlife biologists, so I am not talking out my butt here). In many cases it is just not possible. Animals populations do benefit from predation (and it doesnt matter if it is human or wolves or whatever).

In the real world this is how it works: if the animal problem is too bad than rangers will allow hunters in, this is just plain common sense and has nothing to do with "thrill killing" (which you are implying). Also when hunters are brought in those hunters eat the kills where as a ranger is more likely to simply dispose of the kills.

If it comes to such a situation, then I don&#39;t mind. If the population starts forming a threat to us, then we have a legit reason to kill them. As long as there is a good and clear purpose, you won&#39;t hear from me.

If you drop the hostile attitude (I know that wasnt directed at me) and ignore the trolls we might actually have a decent discussion here. I have known lots and lots of hunters... some certainly are rednecks that just enjoy killing stuff, but for the most part they are intelligent people that are more concerned about the environment than you average joe.

I apologize for the attitude, I was out of line. But let me ask you, why would the biggest part of hunters consist out of people who care for nature, yet also try to kill nature&#39;s spawns? I bet there are plenty of other reasons besides pleasure that we hunt for, but I can&#39;t imagine that the biggest part of the hunters kill because of any other reason then the thrill.

This comment is totally unaccetable and as close to trolling as one can get.

Again, I apologize.

[Erik]

Should humans still be hunting?
Yes, especially on animals that taste good&#33; :grin

Of course they have to be carefull not to "over hunt" a population and they shouldn&#39;t use methods that put the animals is too much pain.