Hunting and shooting animals

[TDAS04]

Well?

[Goldwater]

I'm not interested, but I have no moral objections.

[Crumpets]

Somewhere between three and four. I think trophy hunting is morally wrong, but I'm not against people going out and getting their dinner directly from the source.

[Torie]

You mean hunting and shooting animals within the law? That is not my bag, but some hunting is actually good for the faunasphere, because it replaces what largely eradicated predators used to do, like lions to deer. Now deer seem to be almost as common as rabbits. So option 3 for me.

[TDAS04]

I voted option 3, as I don't complain about what so many people do here in South Dakota; shoot to kill quickly non-endangered species, and stay within legal limits.

I do, however, completely despise the killing of endangered species and the torture of animals.

[HillGoose]

It sounds boring and I don't do it, but I don't object except that I hate those little dick guys who think shooting an endangered animal from a helicopter makes them more of a man.

I actually think it's admirable to be a hunter who hunts invasive or destructive species, or act as the natural predator when there is no longer one.

[DavidB.]

Voted for option 4. I obviously don't mind hunting if people really need the food to survive, but doing it for fun is morally wrong, and almost nobody in the West hunts because they need the food.

It's probably less morally wrong than buying meat in the supermarket, though.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Interested. Too lazy to learn when bow safety day is to get licensed.

[dead0man]

You mean hunting and shooting animals within the law? That is not my bag, but some hunting is actually good for the faunasphere, because it replaces what largely eradicated predators used to do, like lions to deer. Now deer seem to be almost as common as rabbits. So option 3 for me.

More than "some", in the US it's probably "most".  Because hunters and the govt entities involved actually have a fairly good relationship (at least when the hippies stay out of it, or at least remain reasonable).  Hunters are much more into the environment than non-hunters, even ones that give money to environmental causes and march in parades about it.  They actually spend time out in it, enjoying it.  As fewer people hunt, we're going to see more and bigger problems with a few specific species.  As you said, deer in the Northeast are everywhere.  The south is being over run with hogs.  You can't let your pets or children unattended in many parts of southern California (including many urban places) or they'll get ate by a mountain lion or pack of coyotes.

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

Eh, Don't care

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Not my thing, but I've gone with people on hunting trips and have unsuccessfully taken shots off at a few hogs in the past. Not really my thing, like I said.

[Meclazine for Israel]

I have hunted rabbits when i was 13 with a 22.

Missed a lot and realised if you are not a good shot, you only injure the poor animal and an innocent white fluffy little animal just limps off to die a harrowing slow death under the moonlight whilst this music plays in the background.....

https://youtu.be/a502RejLz8s

No one will believe my 2nd only hunt.

Driving Aboriginal native title claimants around the bush during professional work.

They asked to stop the car.

We got out and hunted a bungarra with rocks. I missed.

But the tribal hunt was the go. Exhilerating.

[fhtagn]

Used to hunt. Don't anymore but have no issues with hunting. Would like to get back into it one day.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Option 3.  Human interests results in the depopulation or underpopulation of natural predators and also increases food sources for various prey populations.  They have to be managed or entire ecosystems will begin to fall apart.

[JA]

Option 4

[Alabama_Indy10]

Option 1

[Torie]

You mean hunting and shooting animals within the law? That is not my bag, but some hunting is actually good for the faunasphere, because it replaces what largely eradicated predators used to do, like lions to deer. Now deer seem to be almost as common as rabbits. So option 3 for me.

More than "some", in the US it's probably "most".  Because hunters and the govt entities involved actually have a fairly good relationship (at least when the hippies stay out of it, or at least remain reasonable).  Hunters are much more into the environment than non-hunters, even ones that give money to environmental causes and march in parades about it.  They actually spend time out in it, enjoying it.  As fewer people hunt, we're going to see more and bigger problems with a few specific species.  As you said, deer in the Northeast are everywhere.  The south is being over run with hogs.  You can't let your pets or children unattended in many parts of southern California (including many urban places) or they'll get ate by a mountain lion or pack of coyotes.

A coyote who was wondering around our suburban street killed my beloved cat OJ in Laguna Niguel, in Orange County, CA. I named him that because he was orange and white coated, so it stood for Orange Julius + the football guy because he was so active and agile. And then OJ killed, and OJ the cat was most upset about that. I still miss him.

[Frodo]

Part of me is disgusted with the idea of hunting, injuring, and killing animals who can't shoot back.  Not to mention it is we who are encroaching on their habitat.  

On the other hand, we can't let deer and other herbivores run amok given we virtually wiped out their natural predators throughout most of the country.  And of course there's the introduced species like wild boar that have to be kept under control somehow.  So there's that.  

[Goldwater]

It's probably less morally wrong than buying meat in the supermarket, though.

So the moral thing is to just let the meat rot?

[SWE]

It's probably less morally wrong than buying meat in the supermarket, though.

So the moral thing is to just let the meat rot?

That would certainly be preferable. At least in that case some bugs or something would eat it and at least something would benefit.

[Illiniwek]

Somewhere between three and four. I think trophy hunting is morally wrong, but I'm not against people going out and getting their dinner directly from the source.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

I'll never cease to be amazed by just how unpopular the opinion that sport hunting is sadistic is. How one can take pleasure in the personal slaughter of (e.g.) a deer is completely alien to me.

If it is for fun or sport it is condemnable, otherwise for legit and good use it is ok.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'll never cease to be amazed by just how unpopular the opinion that sport hunting is sadistic is. How one can take pleasure in the personal slaughter of (e.g.) a deer is completely alien to me.

Historically it was the chase, rather than the kill, that was considered the sport. The inversion of this in modern hunting culture is actually legitimately interesting as a cultural phenomenon.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In large parts of the eastern US, deer are actually destroying the forests. White-tailed deer populations have grown so large that they are grazing native tree species into local extinction.

This is an issue here as well - we actually have more deer now than in the Middle Ages! When asked what to do about this problem, the late Oliver Rackham replied 'eat Bambi!'

[DavidB.]

It's probably less morally wrong than buying meat in the supermarket, though.

So the moral thing is to just let the meat rot?

As a liberal, you should know how demand and supply works. Less demand means less supply means less cruelty.