Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hunting is a very controversial topic in my country among those working with animals and those fighting animal cruelty. I've seen interesting points of view from both sides, those who claim hunting is good and necessary and those who claim is cruel and should be banished.
What do you think: hunting is a good and necessary thing or it is a bad thing and cruel?
PS. Considering any form of hunting, professional and sport hunting.
Why do people ASK such ridiculous vague questions???
Not because they actually want useful answers, but because they want to stir the proverbial pot.
What do you mean by "hunting"???? It is meaningless without context.
Whether "hunting" is good or bad will depend on the situation and hundreds of variables. What might be appropriate for one species and one place probably isn't for another. Any hunt can have good outcomes as well as bad ones and usually does.
Opinions tend to be worth what you pay for them...nothing.
FWIW I have spent over 35 years considering the implications of hunting (defined as the intentional killing by humans of some free ranging creature inhabiting a specific habitat for some defined purpose) in multiple US states. I've seen "good" hunts, "bad" hunts, and everything in between. The vast majority of hunts lie somewhere in between; a mixed bag of outcomes. As someone who is relatively more informed about it, can I answer this question as written?
NO!
Last edited by Parnassia; 12-03-2020 at 01:56 PM..
Killing wild animals for serving a purpose, mainly animal population control, but the discussion I have been following focused on professional hunters. We may leaving aside sport hunting. To give you an example, during this pandemic, hunting has been used to control the overpopulation of some animals. Some people consider this as cruel.
If people hunt for meat & they kill the animal quickly then I don't have a problem with it. If they eat the meat.
I do have a problem with trophy hunters, just killing for a trophy & I am disgusted by canned hunts, which take no skill level at all. And don't get me started on killing endangered species.
I also don't like people who take pot shots at animals, not killing them, & then not going after them. If you are hunting, shoot to kill. It is not right to maim animals & leave them die over 4 or 5 days.
If the deer population is too big to be sustainable, then reducing the population is fine.
Last edited by evening sun; 12-03-2020 at 02:28 PM..
I have my own personal criteria for what I consider to be acceptable and not acceptable hunting:
Hunting herbivores is generally OK. Herbivores tend to be more common than carnivores (deer, etc.) so it's OK to help cull their populations.
Hunting carnivores IMO should be rare, at best. Carnivores tend to be less common than herbivores (bears, wild cats of various kinds, etc.), so hunting them should be highly discouraged.
There are exceptions to both, but that's my general rule.
I agree with hunting for sustenance. In our travels throughout the Intermountain West, we encounter many people who hunt and fish. They have purchased tags and licenses and therefore support our public lands. They follow the rules and those who hunt try to get a clean shot. I agree with a previous poster that said hunting herbivores is fine. I also agree that trophy hunting and canned hunts are immoral.
I also disagree with hunting predators like wolves and cougars. If left alone, nature takes care of itself. When people interfere, it gets out of whack.
Hunting is a very controversial topic in my country ........
PS. Considering any form of hunting, professional and sport hunting.
It would be helpful to know what is your country?
What do you mean when you refer to professional hunting? What qualifies as a "professional" hunter? Are you talking about people who are employed and paid to hunt wild animals strictly and only for the purpose of culling over-populated or invasive species? Or something else, maybe like commercial fishing for example?
There is nothing sporting about "sport hunting". It should not be called sport hunting since it doesn't qualify as sport. It should be called "sadistic pleasure hunting" since it's done solely for the reason of getting joy out of killing things.
Regulated hunting according to local needs is a very good thing.
And I strongly disagree that carnivores should not be hunted.... they absolutely should be, responsibly and according to their numbers and impact on human populations and livestock. Regular hunting helps protect predator populations and people by controlling their numbers AND keeping them wary of people.
Uncontrolled black bear populations in our area are responsible for LOTS of tree damage in timber areas, leading to loss of timber value, and increased fire risk from dead trees.
Uncontrolled cougar populations prey on livestock and pets.
Uncontrolled coyote populations prey on livestock and pets.
Both cougar and coyote populations prey heavily on fawns, so, left uncontrolled lead to an aged and increasingly unhealthy older deer population, particularly in suburban areas where hunting is less common.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
