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.
Some people now have no job and no food. In the old days people can go out, hunt a goose and feed the family for a week, or hunt a deer and survive for a month; they cannot do that now because there are all kinds of restrictions (season, license, species, location, etc.)
At a time when healthcare and housing are argued to be a human right, shouldn't hunting wildlife for food be a human right first?
Well, no, because as in the past, people will hunt until the animal is extinct.
Such things need to be controlled.
Tragedy of the commons.
Name a species that was hunted for food to extinction. (Don't give us that crap about the megafauna of the western hemisphere. The climate changes that killed them off are also the changes that allowed humans to migrate here, hence "the coincidence."..."Dog bites man" is not news worthy.)
Hunting does need to be controlled now because encroachment by humans on natural habitat has greatly diminished it. Populations are no longer "natural" and humans need to help MotherNature in establishing efficient population balance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJ99
Should it be a lion's right to hunt humans for food?
"Rights" have nothing to do with it. Lions hunt by nature. It's genetic....and humans (or any prey species) defends itself by nature. Antelope don't fight back. Humans do. A lion hunting a human is a bad career choice.
Some people now have no job and no food. In the old days people can go out, hunt a goose and feed the family for a week, or hunt a deer and survive for a month; they cannot do that now because there are all kinds of restrictions (season, license, species, location, etc.)
At a time when healthcare and housing are argued to be a human right, shouldn't hunting wildlife for food be a human right first?
No. First of all, wildlife doesn't belong to just you or me or him or her. It belongs to all of us. Wildlife serves a function on earth, beyond as food for you or me. They are part of the cycle of life on earth. Every insect, every animal, is food for some other creature. You wipe out toads, and the creatures that lived off them will die, too. The geographical area where those creatures lived will therefore change.
In the very old days, there was abundant wildlife. Now, many species are endangered. Earth has lost HALF of its wildlife in the last few decades. HALF.
This is why government programs are important. No one will starve, when his govt has programs for those w/o food, like the U.S. does. Also, the U S has many charities that dispense food to the needy. There is no need for anyone to go around killing wildlife (if he can find it - most people live in cities).
So the premise is false. There is no "need" for someone to kill wildlife to prevent starving. Civilization has taken care of that.
There is no "need" for someone to kill wildlife to prevent starving. Civilization has taken care of that.
"Civilization" created the Covid19 virus. When the Covid19 virus kills off 90% of human civilization, the rest will have no choice but to become hunters.
No. First of all, wildlife doesn't belong to just you or me or him or her. It belongs to all of us. Wildlife serves a function on earth, beyond as food for you or me. They are part of the cycle of life on earth. Every insect, every animal, is food for some other creature. You wipe out toads, and the creatures that lived off them will die, too. The geographical area where those creatures lived will therefore change.
In the very old days, there was abundant wildlife. Now, many species are endangered. Earth has lost HALF of its wildlife in the last few decades. HALF.
This is why government programs are important. No one will starve, when his govt has programs for those w/o food, like the U.S. does. Also, the U S has many charities that dispense food to the needy. There is no need for anyone to go around killing wildlife (if he can find it - most people live in cities).
So the premise is false. There is no "need" for someone to kill wildlife to prevent starving. Civilization has taken care of that.
It now seems people cannot go on living without conforming to a style prescribed and permitted by the government. I find that to be anti the most basic rules of nature and very disturbing.
You cannot build something to house yourself without permit from building department.
You cannot get on the road unless your have a car with a current tag from motor vehicles department.
You cannot catch a fish or a turkey for food without a license from fish and game department.
In some areas by regulation you cannot even catch rain water to drink!
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.
