Poll: When is Hunting Acceptable?

[Ensiferum]

I chose other. Hunting can be useful for food and it can be great for sport, just as long as it's kept under control. Likewise, animal populations in areas that are densely populated by people need to be kept under control as well, chiefly with animals that can be dangerous. The best example of this is deer. There are so many deer in my area that you almost can't drive witohut seeing one. More people in my area also have car accidents caused by deer then they would from other reckless drivers. On top of that, lime disease is fairly common because there are so many. For those reasons especially, deer need to be kept under control, and the only effective way to do that is by hunting (as trying to move them all would cost millions of taxpayer dollars).

 

[Faladorian]

to reduce numbers of an overpopulated species, because at a certain point the actually become a threat to themselves (some species) thats the only time when its acceptable to me

Oh come on when people hunt to thin the population of animals it's called hunting but when I do it to humans suddenly I'm an "assassin" ...please.

Joking aside, killing for food is absolutely acceptable. It's how we got where we are, and no matter what vegetarians will tell you, eating meat AND vegetables is more healthy than eating just vegetables

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Ummmm..... Always? As long as you aren't hunting an endangered species, then go for it. I see no good reason not to.

 

[spartan231490]

Only when done for food, if you say you can do it for population control then why not bomb China to control the population?

Hunting for sport is a lesser version of being a military sniper. at least the sniper is achieving something by bringing the world closer to peace. The hunter is expending a bullet and nothing get accomplished. Also in the military how are points determined when you shoot someone? I know there are like 6 point bucks so are there like 3 point corporals and 7 point officers?

Please, oh please tell me you're being sarchastic. A 6 point buck is a deer that has 6 tines on it's antlers. generally, a deer with a bigger set of antlers is older and therefore wiser and harder to kill. Just like bigger fish, that's why this is used as a measure of merit, because it's harder. And if sport hunting accomplishes nothing, than neither does gaming or reading a book. It is a form of entertainment and stress releif, and if you don't think that accomplishes anything I wonder why you're a member of the escapist.

 

[WJC]

When done (sustainably) for food; also when done for pest control.

 

[Varanfan9]

Done for Food is ok but when you turn them into trophies thats like defacing a corpse. It just seems wrong to me to kill animals for something pointless other than food.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Strangely I expected to go with only for food, but I don't mind it so much when it's one on one, even with the human armed with a rifle.

Something just really winds me up about British fox hunting however, if you need 20 people on horseback, then need to hire about 20 more people to go on foot to smash down hedges and bushes for you, and large packs of dogs, to catch ONE fox, fuck me, you've entirely failed at hunting.

I sense the upper classes like fox hunting so much because they're so desperately stumpfuck inbred, that the flippers where other people have hands stop them looking up animal torture videos to get their kicks, so they have to throw thousands of pounds at a 'hunt' to see an animal torn limb from limb, tho they wouldn't be able to rub their children's faces in the blood from just internet video.

In terms of fox hunting, I'm in favour of it, so long as everyone involved has to share that one fox and can have no more food for the rest of the month.

If the prey is going to be butchered and eaten, fine, but really, fox hunting is for twats. If you want to hunt a fox, go out with one rifle and hunt it. In it's current form it's like China invading the Isle of Wight.

I don't particularly like Anne Widdecombe, but she's being ignored and blanked out of where she lives because she doesn't agree with it. Does this really happen in other places? I can't imagine that if I said I don't agree with tax breaks for the furniture industry I'd come up against angry silence in my community, despite there being quite a few furniture craftsmen local to me.

 

[hittite]

Hunting, especially in regards to deer keep populations in check. I have no problem with hunting as long as the kill will be used well.

This. Not many people realize that in many places in the US, deer have no natural predators. Meaning that hunters have to fill in the blank to keep them from overpopulating. Cuz that's bad. No really, as in famine, disease, eventual die-off and a massive rise in car accidents.

That being said, hunters make lousy predators. Predators will thin out the weak and the injured and thus make the whole stronger. Hunters will go straight for the biggest, strongest one with the big rack. Not as helpful as you'd think.

 

[Yeager942]

I only have a problem with hunting if it begins to endanger a species. However, if people are hunting, for example, deer because the deer population has suddenly and dangerously exploded, then I say it's okay.

 

[spartan231490]

Yup, I totally support people hunting animals. Seems fine, seeing as animals hunt each other all the time and its perfectly natural.
The thing that throws off this equation is the unnatural use of firearms, which quickly removes any sense of fairness or sport from the equation.
If you want to hunt I totally support you, but first I'm going to strip you down, take your gun, hand you a switchblade, and then point you towards the nearest bear. Best of luck macho man.

Challenge Accepted....How thick is a bears skull by the way and will a bowie knife do the trick?!

Bowie knife won't cut it on the skull. throat shot would work. As a side note, the deer might not have a firearm, but it does have an extremely wide peripheral vision, an amazing sense of smell, and an equally amazing sense of hearing. Even getting close enough to use a bow is extremely dificult, even when it comes to you. You might not think it's fair, but as someone who hunts, I can tell you that the odds lie heavily in the deers favor. Even with ducks and rabbits and other small game, more get away than get killed. How's that work for fair. And with large game hunting, like deer, most hunters don't even fill thier tags every year, despite a season that is several weeks long. You can't watch espn and think that's real hunting, it's not, it's cheating to create a reliable kill for entertainment.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

Anyone who has a problem with hunting should join me for a nice Chukar hunt next season. You take a gun, you see the birds, they chuckle at you, you chase the birds up a mountain to try and make them take to the air and instead they run all the way to the peak and glide down the other side to the valley floor. You then follow them down and chase them up the next hill until you are several valleys away from the truck and very tired.

When you get one, it's the best feeling in the world because they piss you off that bad.

So I only support hunting when it's for food or for sheer unbridled rage. F***ing Chukar.

 

[Zhukov]

I don't mind if it's done for food. We all have to eat.

But if you are running around killing and inflicting extreme pain purely for the sake of your own amusement then you are a bastard, plain and simple.

I regard people who hunt for sport on the same level as teenagers who torture their neighbour's pets.

 

[Aur0ra145]

I hunt for food.

With that said, I'd rather shoot a large buck than a smaller one. But in the end of the day, I'll kill whatever so me and my family has meat.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Only when done for food, if you say you can do it for population control then why not bomb China to control the population?

Hunting for sport is a lesser version of being a military sniper. at least the sniper is achieving something by bringing the world closer to peace. The hunter is expending a bullet and nothing get accomplished. Also in the military how are points determined when you shoot someone? I know there are like 6 point bucks so are there like 3 point corporals and 7 point officers?

Please, oh please tell me you're being sarchastic. A 6 point buck is a deer that has 6 tines on it's antlers. generally, a deer with a bigger set of antlers is older and therefore wiser and harder to kill. Just like bigger fish, that's why this is used as a measure of merit, because it's harder. And if sport hunting accomplishes nothing, than neither does gaming or reading a book. It is a form of entertainment and stress releif, and if you don't think that accomplishes anything I wonder why you're a member of the escapist.

Alright so I was wrong to say it accomplishes nothing BUT at the same time killing for stress relief is wrong in the same way it's wrong to kill your boss because he pisses you off.

As for a point system among say for example Iraqi officers:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/insignia-officer.htm
a mulazim is one point, a ra'id is worth 4, and if you manage to pop a mushir that's 11 points. That work for you?

 

[Zombus]

In my opinion hunting is a good way to control animal populations. For example say you have an endangered specie (for whatever reason) that is also being preyed upon by another, more abundant, specie. Encouraging hunters to hunt the predators is a cheap and effective way for a government to protect the endangered specie. Or say a foreign invasive specie has been introduced into some environment where it is growing at a feverish rate and putting strain on the aforementioned environment as well as its normal animal communities. In this situation hunting could be used to help control the population of the new specie or remove it altogether if it proves to be too harmful. I don't hunt myself but I do enjoy fishing casually; I occasionally have fished with my father and grandfather and while there are negative aspects to hunting as long as it is regulated it can have many positive repercussions as opposed to only negative ones. Unregulated over hunting will always be a problem, but that doesn't mean hunting is only something soulless monsters who hate animals do.

 

[Talvrae]

Well for me as long as it's done under regulations and that it dont get the animal population under a certain points. I'm always on the side to using hunting to regulate animal population, and for food