What is your position on hunting?

I've grown up in a family that loves to go fishing, but I've never thought of it as hunting. As a vegetarian, I still fish, but I then release the fish. In hunting, you can't release an animal after you shoot it. My opinion on hunting is that it is...

wrong. The reason I believe hunting is wrong is that it is unnecessary. If you want to eat meat, that's fine, I'm not against other people eating meat because it is their choice. But, you can go to your local grocery store and pick some up. So, why do people go out and shoot a defenseless animal in its own environment for game? I know that they usually go and eat the animal afterwards, but like I said, you can easily go out and buy some. Why do people cause pain and suffering for fun and just to have a tasty dinner? What do you think about hunting?

As most members here know I've been a vegetarain for a long time (28 years).

I find hunting purely for sport somewhat distasteful but I have less of a problem when hunters eat what they take. In a way I find hunting honest. People who buy their meat in a grocery story pay someone else to do the dirty work and usually don't think about the animals life. A hunter knows the meat they eat was once alive.

Hunting is wrong, how would a human feel if someone just came up to them and shot them for food?

I find hunting, in modern culture, to be totally unnecessary.

 
The success of man as a species is partly attributable to the fact that he learned to eat meat, which is high in protein, and, as a result, allowed his brain to expand.

I, personally, don't hunt because meat is available to me at the store. However, I don't begrudge others who do hunt as long as it is for food. If is is simply for sport/trophies, then I am against it.

I'm also against fishing for sport (catch and release). I think it is wrong to intentionally inflect pain in a creature simply so that you can catch and release it.

I do believe in the propriety of catching and using animals for their furs and skins as long as the whole animal is utilized and not wasted and that the manner of catching/killing it is humane.

Ok, heres the deal. You are completly off. We NEED to hunt. If very few people hunted, animal populations would become overpopulated. Over population leads to disease... which can eventually effect humans. You see, we NEED to hunt... for population control. When you say "But, you can go to your local grocery store and pick some up." (some refering to meat) ... are you aware that most meat at the grocerie store travles over 3,000 miles just to get to get to the shelf of your grocerie store? Do you know that a good majority of the animals that that meat comes from are abused, shoved into tiny cages with nothing but mud and their own poop on the floor? Then they are killed in the end... but with hunting... you kill the meat yourself so all in all, you will use less fossil fuels (in production and gas to transport it) and it is doing good for the planet (population control) AND... the deer (or whatever you're shooting) is outside for it's WHOLE life... living happily... you don't see that on conventional farms...

Now, just because I have these logical views doesn't mean I'm all ted neugent and sh*t. I AM A VEGETARIAN! I just feel this way because really, if it was any other way, we'd all be pretty much fu*ked.

Think about it that way... and get back to me...

Hunting actually does not kill off large portions of animal populations. It's just cruelty. The only species that become affected by hunting are the endangered ones. The way we should control animal populations are by introducing species above the overpopulated ones in the food chain so that their population can be decreased in a more natural way. Not with guns and bows. I'm a vegetarian so I know what you are talking about with the meat available in stores, but hunting is no different. You are still inflicting pain on a creature and ending it's life. It may not go through the same amount of torture, but it is just as unnecessary and cruel. Hunting was very necessary a long time ago when grocery stores weren't available. But if you are going to eat meat, then just go to a grocery store. Any source of meat is cruel and wrong, but in my eyes, hunting is far more unnecessary than meat factories.

If very few people hunted, animal populations would become overpopulated.

No, not enough animals are hunted to even make a difference. Plus, they would just become healthily populated-- like they would be if humans didn't ruin their natural habitats and poison their waters and eat them.

whoopsies, my opinion on hunting is essentially the same as yours. Cruel and unecessary.

I own 1 high powered rifle 1 shot gun and 2 pistols. . plus 2 swords and 5 knives over 9 inches long. . . . I enjoy hunting and only shoot what I'll eat except for skunks. . . I just can't bring myself to eat a skunk. . . Or a mountain lion. . . Never shoot one but I have seen 3 less than a quarter mile from my house.

Oh Long live Ted Nugent!!!

animal populations are impacted through hunting, you can most certainly tell when there has been a mild winter- you see more dead animals along the roadsides.which means a larger deer herd- which dictates how the dnr will regulate and plan the hunt for that upcoming season- more deer- means more doe permits, to increase the harvest.

if hunters didn't kill animals during hunting seasons- there would be a lot more along side of the roads- your insurance rates would go sky high, and as was mentioned above they would eventually become diseased.

not to mention the impact on farmers crops- more animals need more food, which means less of a harvest, which would most likely impact VEGETARIANS as well as all of the rest of us. more animals would mean more critters in the inner cities- eating garbage, and low and behold your garden as well.

more animals would also create more predators, which would certainly begin to spread into the cities as well, following the prey animals that would be searching for food- imagine how your pet cat is going to respond to a pack of coyotes in your backyard.

conservation through hunting is an integral part of nature, it helps keep things in balance.

if you don't have the ability to 'harvest' a game animal for your dinner, then that is your choice, if I had my way I would consume only animals that I have killed, and try to keep the processed store bought meat to a minimum of my consumption.
'harvesting' game is in our genetic makeup- it is how our brains became what they are- eating meat.

it is all a question of how you would rather see animals- living in a healthy population- or dieing from disease, and starvation- or lying dead along the roadside.
I am a hunter- always will be, I love animals- I truly do, but keeping their population in check through organized conservation is the proper solution.

and yes TED NUGENT RULES!!!
P.E.T.A.- People Eating Tasty Animals

***If very few people hunted, animal populations would become overpopulated.***

Well, all of the game animals have natural predators that maintain the bal--- Oh wait... You've killed off most of those, haven't you?

Darn... yeah, I guess hunting's the only option now...

**hunting isn't bad just think if you don't hunt you will strave and die and then would you rather starve and die or kill a animal and live and not be hungry idunno thats what I think**

more game animals means MORE PREDATORS AS WELL - goodbye spot, goodbye miss kitty when they follow their prey into your town.

responsible hunting is an effective tool for conservation, and the last time I checked- populations of bald eagles are on the rise.

populations of wolves are on the rise, and I believe that they are almost close to being taken off the endangered species lists.

coyotes are very abundant, as are foxes, and hawks, so there goes your theory captainassassin- straight out the window.

human hunters have become one of the 'predators' that help maintain the balance, and we can regulate the harvest to suit the animal population- unlike natural predators which have only prey animals to feed on, and no thoughts about overharvest until the population of their normal prey has been seriously decreased- and then they suffer starvation, and a slow death to bring things back into a balance.

hunters are a big part of the natural balance through our hunting efforts and the money from our hunting licenses which goes towards better habitat for all animals.

***coyotes are very abundant, as are foxes, and hawks, so there goes your theory captainassassin- straight out the window.***

...wasn't talking about those. I've never heard of a hawk flying off with a deer...

"wasn't taliking about those."
I believe you were referring to predators- all of those are predators, they all have a natural place in the scheme of things.

you neglected to comment on the wolf populations that are on the rise- through the efforts of the dnr- which is funded by a portion of hunting license revenue.

and the successful rise of the bald eagle, which have been aided by hunters as well.

just face the fact that responsible hunting is a good thing for everyone involved.
if you don't have the inclination to kill a game animal- then that is certainly your right, but killing a game animal is my right- one that I enjoy and am going to pass on to the next generation.

This is a ridiculous argument.

Hunting for sport is simply a subconscious way of practicing for the inevitable when humans must survive without all the pleasantries we currently enjoy.

Humans have always hunted, and always will. If you are a vegetarian you are weakening our genes.

I'm all for hunting...as long as people eat what they kill...We're omnivores...we eat from many different food classes (notice that we have eye-teeth (canines)...for meat...front teeth made for tearing flesh...back molars for grains, veggies etc)...we were MADE to eat meat...

I can't really condone hunting of animals that are not for food, however...hunting wolves, lions, tigers, etc...purely for sport and money...

I don't think that animals "think" quite like humans...they are at all times in the fight or flight mode...nobody is going "sneak up on them, and shoot'em in the head"...hunting isn't THAT easy.

phrannie

Actually, an argument can be made that we are more herbivores than we are carnivores. We have sweat glands, we aren't nocturnal, we aren't covered in fur, and we walk on two legs.The only thing carnivorous about us is our canines and our ability to digest meat. But even our meat digestion is very weak, which is why we can't eat meat raw.

baldwinwolf, there are more natural ways to keep animal populations under control. Introduce that animal's predators into the areas with overpopulation, and it will be taken care of. You don't need to use violence to kill animals. And people don't have to hunt anymore, we just choose to so that we can take pleasure in killing animals and taking them home to eat. We aren't cavemen and there are good alternatives out there. It's the 21st century. We are the only species that enjoys inflicting pain and killing other creatures. That's not something we should be proud of and we should start to slowly change our ways to help build a better world and to put an end to global warming and violence.

As to my position on Hunting. I'm going to go with the native Americans .

Only take what you need and what you kill.

As for those people who are against hunting. Unless your a vegetarian.

You eat cows who were lived in enclosed fields who were destine to be killed.

Hunting is less cruel. : )

well some people need to support their families and being me...I live in the country with my dad and I don't quite like all the meat there unless it's store bought but the store is a ways away so you got to do what you got to do...and besides I think hunting is for fun as much as food...if you left it there it would be fun but you would be hungry.

I believe hunting is ok. After all, that's why God put animals on this earth. Plus I think that it's in man's nature to desire the hunt.
I don't however agree with killing, just for the sake of killing.

whoopsies222- so we introduce predators into overpopulated areas- then what, you are not following your own course of logic- the prey animals population will be brought into line- but the predator population will explode within that area- and when there are fewer prey animals to munch- guess what, your pets and livestock are now on the menu. and when the food supply both wild and domestic are in short supply- STARVATION- a truly slow and torturous way to die. that is what your utopian dream will bring.

lets face it- before europeans came to this continent, all animal populations were in line with nature. native americans hunted, and didn't really make that big of a difference in animal population. nature was the primary decision maker in their life or death. but when nature decides there are too many animals- it is oftentimes very cruel- and very slow. is that what you wish for our animal populations?

we can not simply go back to letting nature take it's course. we have interfered with the ecosystems by developing agriculture- now these animals do not need to follow seasonal migration routes to find food- they have it in abundance all across america.
you need to accept that this problem has already been solved through responsible, and ETHICAL hunting practices.

the deer that I have harvested in the past years have not felt a thing- due in part to my marksmanship abilities. am I saying that I have never caused an animal to suffer in the short term- no I am not saying that. I do my best to make a clean kill- and through experience and practice- I have become more proficient with my chosen weapons.

here is one of my favorite examples of 'anti hunters' really dropping the ball.
there was an island in the florida keys- it was seriously overpopulated with deer.
the dnr came up with the plan to have a special hunt to thin down the population.
well, the 'antis' heard about this- and they decided that live trapping and relocation was the best solution.
so here you have two conflicting things happening- you have hunters waiting for the shot, and you have 'antis' setting traps.
when it was all said and done- the anti hunters had managed to kill more deer through their misguided efforts, than the actual hunters- it was a large fiasco.
THE ANTI HUNTERS KILLED MORE DEER THAN THE DEER HUNTERS- did you get that.
the sooner you realize that you are alive from the killing of something else- the better the world will be. yes unless you eat rocks, you live because of the death of another living thing. plants are ALIVE before they are harvested, and that argument could go quite a ways.

I am going to continue to hunt wheather you agree with it or not, and if you try to interrupt my hunt with some half- baked antihunting antics- I will press charges and send the perpetrator to jail- or at least hit them in the pocket book through a stiff fine.
what I choose to do for recreation and to relax, and stock my freezer- is completely MY BUSINESS.

if you want to rely on the supermarkets around the nation- hey , have at it. to me with my hunting skills- the whole entire world becomes my natural FREE market. I will never know hunger because a tasty animal is just a short distance away.