Where are these places where there is a need to cull ducks or geese? I'm not aware of these places. And what kind of ducks have you been shooting at?
Most big game hunting isn't actually endangered species, its done on reservations with carefully monitored populations. When it is endangered species its appalling and should be prosecuted heavily. However, given that we don't need to eat meat to survive, the killing of animals for food has the exact same motive as hunting game for sport, its for human enjoyment. The only difference is that the enjoyment is derived from consuming the dead animal and not the act of killing itself. Its up to the psychologists amongst us to debate if killing an animal for fun is worse than paying someone to kill an animal for you so you can enjoy its carcass. I'm not a vegetarian or animal rights enthusiast but its annoying that people cannot see the hypocrisy in their comments just because we are socially conditioned to think one thing and not the other.
It's lions, rhinos and giraffes, all of which are endangered species. I find it bizarre that anyone can't see the difference between farming animals to eat and risking wiping out a species for fun.
Meh. Meat eaters, dairy consumers, fishers, hunters to eat and hunters for 'fun' are all ****s. Hunters/fishers for fun are just more ****y.
Ok like you say it's difficult to discuss on a message board I wouldn't do it myself but I can understand killing and eating, but I find killing for fun abhorent I don't know what will be on that channel, but lots of hunting I see, even outside big game hunting, is clearly people doing it for enjoyment. Even some of the small stuff, like pheasants for example, seem mostly done as a jolly day out for people who like killing things (not saying that's the case with you by the way) Anyway, interesting chat
Probably because you're not seeing the slaughter that creates your food first hand, so you've become desensitised to the killing of poultry and farm animals. What is the difference between shooting, say, a lion and a pig? Does the fact of what we do to the carcass make that animal less important when it's alive? How do you define which animals you're okay with killing and which animals you aren't? Why do some get a free pass and some don't? It's a massive hypocrisy, you cannot possibly say you're not okay with animals being slaughtered yet consume them on a daily basis. Which is why I don't care. It means I can eat bacon guilt free and punch a whale in the face. Death comes for us all eventually. So make the most of your life.
I've never actually eaten lion, but if they were farmed and there were millions of them, then I wouldn't be arsed about people shooting them. Likewise, if we we didn't eat pigs and we were down to our last 5,000 worldwide, I'd object to them being shot for fun. ****, this is hard work, how can you not understand the difference between a farmed animal and an endangered species?
Because you are ignoring the obvious. The end result is a dead animal, the animals have to suffer, regardless of the species. They're all animals, they're all sentient and all feel pain. We know what happens to agricultural animals, they're subjected to some pretty horrendous torture before they die, even free range stuff is often brutalised yet this is okay because we eat them. Somebody shoots a giraffe and that's not okay. Well, the giraffe probably died instantly. The pig probably didn't. The giraffe lived in the wild, the pig probably didn't. Just because we breed animals for slaughter doesn't make their death any better, does it? In fact, bringing something into the world only to take that life away is surely worse isn't it? What I'm getting at is, if one is so against the hunting of animals, how can they then actively promote the slaughter of a different species for the same purpose of pleasure? People derive pleasure from hunting, just like some derive pleasure from a cheeseburger. But in the end, it's the animal that suffers.
Like I said if its endangered then its disgraceful and should be punished heavily, but these cases constitute a tiny proportion of animals that are hunted for sport, most is completely sustainable. Ultimately its not the endangered aspect that people take issue with, its the hunting for sport and that's the part I find hypocritical. In terms of absolute cruelty the farming of domestic animals for for systematic slaughter is significantly more cruel, unnatural and unethical, but because we are raised with it from birth we don't bat an eyelid.
Well you aren't answering the question I keep asking. If something is near extinction then it should obviously not be hunted, but why does it need to get to that stage to stop anything from being killed? Using the pilot whale analogy that Walter so graciously misinterpreted, that's sustainable whaling. Does that make it alright? I am playing devil's advocate by the way, I don't care either way but I am interested in the debate.
I think you're making a different point, no ones disagreeing that slaughtering endangered animals is bad, its for sure worse than slaughtering farm animals. What I and I think Sterling are trying to comment on is the hypocrisy of people condemning hunting for sport whilst condoning slaughtering for meat. Given the vast majority of hunting is not done on endangered species its a very valid point to raise.
Exactly, you either care about the treatment of animals from an ethical standpoint or you don't. But if you do, you can't really turn a blind eye to one part and be consistent with your values.
