Animation Source Forums

You raise many good points. I have nothing against hunting, really, humans are basically at the top of the food chain, we were meant to kill animals for food, like many other animals kill each other for food. I can understand those people who confuse hunters for poachers, but they need to see that it's human nature to hunt.

Same with me; I'm always willing to hear the arguments for the other side of an issue, but I don't think I'll ever like hunting...and almost certainly won't ever do it..

Bruno, you raise many good points. I do not like hunting, yet I find it acceptable, because we need food to survive. I don't like watching an animal get killed, far from killing it myself, but I accept that it is a fact of life.
In other words, I don't like, nor despise hunting.

Hunting for pure sport, like killing wolves, or just hunting what you can for the thrill of it, is another issue I won't be putting up in this post.


Anyway, on to your different points, then.

1) Hunting game ethically actually helps the enviroment cope with human beings!

Just think of what the populations of game animals would do (with all the excess food that is dumped in the trash) in urban enviroments. Accidents would skyrocket and deaths would also skyrocket, due to more accidents. Driving down the road, you already have a 1 in 125 chance of dying before getting home, we do not need that chance increased because we allowed the populations of urban animals to increase. Then after all the food is eaten, animals will starve to death. Which is better? Being shot and dying within 30 seconds, if that long, or starving to death and slowly withering away over the course of a couple monthes?
------------------------------------------

First of all, the chance of dying on the way home is far less than what you've stated (I do not know the exact numbers, but it varies among the districts. Where I live, the chance of dying on the road is around 1 in a million. However, this is because people get proper education, the roads are good, and we live in a little populated area).
There are also many different kinds of deaths for animals shot or starved. A starving animal will become desperate, and take desperate measures to feed itself, and in an urban environment, it will ultimately get run over by a car, or killed by other humans. Both can be instant death, or long and painful ones.
However, a bullet in the head can also be very VERY painful for the animal. This is due to the fact that, even though the animal appears to be dead, in around 87% of the cases, the bullet has paralyzed it to such an extent that it can't move at all, but still the animal will feel the pain, and slowly die. And this pain is extreme, far beyond what starvation creates.
-----------------------------------------
3) Hunters are the largest group of conservationalists.

Where are all the animal rights groups at? How come the very thing that they protest against, is the one providing the most $$$? Seems a little odd to me, that they protest against hunting because it is "cruel", yet hunting is saving the most land, providing the most funds for conservation.
-----------------------------------------
Well, personally; I'm against the use of cash, but that's just me and my worthless opinion, it seems. Noone can understand, or imagine, how the world would look like if cash had never been introduced. Money is power, and power corrupts. Without money, there is no power. Without power, there is no corruption. It's a win-win situation.
Now, here's the problem; hunting may be the thing that makes the big cash, but the morals and intentions are equal to the one of assassination. Maybe you have not realized it, but more than three quarters of companies (or whatever) that pays hunters to hunt, actually hates animals, and would see them all dead. The only thing preventing them from realizing their "dream" is the international laws about the "sport".
Hunting IS cruel, but it is necessary (sadly) for humans to survive.


Just going a little off-topic while comparing normal hunting with slaughterhouses.
Normal hunting is often much quicker, and painless than animals slaughtered in a slaughterhouse. First of all, a well-placed headshot means the instant death of an animal, or within seconds.
In a slaughterhouse, the animals are "nailed" in the head with the use of an air compressor to knock the creature unconscious. But in many cases, they are still alive. The slaughterer hangs the poor creature from its hind legs in a small room, where their throat is cut, and they're left to bleed to death.


This is a clear difference, which I see and understand, and I'd rather prefer the creature get a bullet, than be in a normal slaughterhouse. Surely, if slaughterhouses had glass walls, we would all be vegetarians.


But back on-topic.
Bruno, you have some very good points, and you've made a better rant than most could ever do. I both agree and disagree with you, however. I could write a lot more, but I've no time. So Bruno, you're quite right, although there are certain points which are discussable.

I agree 100% with what yupik said.
The usual arguement for hunting for sport is that 'it controls animal populations,' which in my opinion is utter rubbish. Wolf and fox populations do not need controlling, since Mother Nature has a way of controlling them:
When a wolf's prey population declines, so does that of the wolf. But this allows the prey population to recover, and with more food, the wolves recover too. And so it goes on, up and down. It has done for thousands of years. Wolves and foxes do not need to be killed. Humans do far more damage than wolves or foxes, and yet I don't see anyone going off and 'culling' people. Why? Because it is immoral and cruel. Why should animals be any different?

I understand that shooting deer may be the only option in some cases - if natural predators like wolves are extinct. If we didn't shoot the deer, they would cause damage to the environment. Humans may take the place of predators. But aside from that, I feel that it is wrong to kill for any reasons beyond food or survival.

BTW, the rant board is for rants about the site. I think that this would be better off in the Animals section.

Very well stated, Canis Lupus; I agree with that entirely.

Well, all creatures are bound by a universal law; Any creature of earth whom dies an unnatural death for unnatural reasons, are bound to suffer greatly before the final release.

In common term, this means that the animal will still live for a short time (if shot in the heart, seconds), and suffer greatly before it really dies. It may appear dead, but it might also be that it is alive.
In short, headshot or not, they will still suffer...
I don't really think a "clean kill" is possible.

While you do raise good points I guess, not every one is going to accept hunting. Like me. I still think it's wrong. Why? It's my own personal opinions.

There are always going to be people on this site that say hunting is wrong and that they or against it or whatever. And there's nothing we can do about it because it's their oppinion.

And does this even work as a rant? It has nothing to do with the site.

Does this topic really belong here? I mean yes its a rant I see that clearly,but it says straight up the rant board is to rant about problems on the site and maybe a mod can help you fix it. I seriously doubt the mods have power over hunting except when it comes to hunting for spammers and stealers of art. haha but,I just would like to know if it really belongs here or in the other section because if it belongs here it would be good to add that in the description so people who have a non-related site rant know to add it here,because I never remember seeing this kinda rant here.