Should hunting animals be forbidden?

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Foinikas, Mar 31, 2010.

  1. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +342 / 1 / -0
    On Safari for sport for fun etc..
    Those kinds of reasons are both selfish, self gratifiing and highly destrutive in both action and mentality. They are also highly dangerous in todays world where the gun has made the act of killing a much reduced risk for the hunter - especailly if you hunt for plains animals like many you find on african safari - where shooting from a safe distance is a high possibility --- tigers are not plains creatures and thus are harder to kill because you have to close distance with them to find and get a line of sight to shoot.
    However I said dangerous and then countered that so I should clarify - its dangerous for the animal (and by direct extension its ecosystem that it is a part of) itself. This is because the gun has made it easy and tourism is a big buisness =-= put the two together and you have a reciepy as deadly as the fur trade, skins, bone and meat trades. Infact one that can be even worse for the abuse of the animal. Consider pheasant shooting in the UK - today there are more and more tourist shoots starting up because of the high price tourists will pay to act the upper class gent and shoot for the day/week. They buy all the "right gear" and go out and shoot - but instead of a hunt or a few braces they shoot dozens of birds (with shotguns) most of which are simply let fly on one side of a hill - to be shot as soon as they take flight (Rather like a living clay pidgeon).
    However the meat is lost because butchers won't take birds filled with shot and the shooters themselves will only take a brace or two at the end of the day. Leaving many killed birds to go to waste. For pheasant shoots the birds were always raised for the hunt before (originally a food source as well as sport) - however animals like otter, fox, tiger, lion etc.. are not breed for the kill - they are taken direct from wild stocks only. Thus an increase in killing results in reduced growth or even loss of growth in the populations (eventually that leads to extinction without fail unless growth again is allowed to increase). And of course when lots of money gets involved peoples willingness to heed advice gets lost and its very easy to over predate upon the animals and thus cause massive destruction.



    Killing of other animals of course does go on for good reasons - consider deer in the UK - an animal which now has no predator save man to control its populations. Without culling and control of their populations their main method of self control would be to increase in population until such a time as they eat more food than is produced in a year - thus they would stave. A boom and starve cycle would start up, but such a cycle is destructive by nature because pressured and under threat lands would have little to no recovery time and thus would be a more risk to die of completly. Add into that the fact that habitat destruction would also affect other populations and you have a massive problem; and that is without taking into account the fact that many ecosystsmes are already in need of recovery time from mans activities.



    If you want a "REAL" challenge then put down the gun and pick up a camera (I am serious). I know several people who have swapped the gun for the camera (or binoculars) and without fail most are well into their senior years and many lose the drive/desire to hunt altogether. Heck one guy I know still shoots only to cull the deer (as needed and no more) each year to help stave off a starve cycle starting up because he has grown to care for them enough to not wish that they suffer.
    Cameras are also far harder than a gun - not only must one track as a hunting - get into perfect position - but one must often be a lot closer for the "killer shot" and also have the light perfect and from the right angle - two things a hunter might never worry about save to ensure that they are not easily lit or shadowing their prey. Heck even getting the right shot itself is a far harder thing than many appreciate.
     
  2. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    A small note on what's been dubbed "safari hunting":

    Most of this is commercial and happens on private estates that take care of their own "wild" population. In the Popular countries, especially South Africa, there are breeders for game animals, to be sold at auction to those owning private hunting estates. These are mostly NOT natural population and bare closer resemblance to agriculture. Hunters pay for shot game - or lisences - and guides and equipment. Apparently, it's all pretty profitable...

    Sometimes, gouvernments sell culling permits. Often, a gouvernment official will join the trip (on the hunters expense) to make sure no hunting happens outside the permit. Generally, these permits pose no threat to wildlife stocks. If you want to hunt Elephant, this is probably your best shot.

    The term Safari means "traveling" in Swahili, btw - and has nothing to do with hunting :D

    EDIT:
    There is an exception; predators. Shooting lion or leopard is much wanted but very hard to provide. Generally, predators are kept outside private gaming resorts (for obvious reasons) by for instances fences (that also keeps the stock inside, so to speak). There are those who do, but that comes at a hefty price. These animals are protected, though a permit for a wild, roaming individual can be obtained through the gouvernment to "prevent economic damage". Again, these permits are sold for top dollar. So, if you like, they can be the victim of " safari" hunting
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2010
  3. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +342 / 1 / -0
    Tur this is where that grey line starts to appear - it does not take much for thoughts to shift from selling permits to shoot animals listed for the cull (which will be killed anyway) to letting the people take a few more shots at the herd/another herd for a good few more $ (esp in poorer nations).

    Also the other problem is one of selection - a hunter who culls for the good of the population will strike at the weaker/older members of the community and might occasionally remove troublesome males from the environment (or females if they are dominant) to help ensure a calmer single herd/community. But they don't remove the big lead buck with the biggest rack/pelt/meat etc.. which is exactly what a "tourist" hunter will go to cull.
     
  4. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    And in Arabic "Usafir" means travel!And probably in arabic,turkish and of course greek old slang(from the ottoman occupation)musafir means "visitor" <----Foinikas shows off :D

    Anyway,has anyone here hunted an animal?

    Good Safari times(how dangerous a lion can be even against modern weapons and hunters):

    And the best:

     
  5. Ser Land

    Ser Land New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Azores, Portugal
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Hunting animals for reason other than food gathering should be illegal. If men can't grow up and be responsible, and act in accordance to their self-named superiority, than they should at least have laws on that regard to which they should abide.

    That said, even hunt for food must have some limits, as the safeguard of species.
     
  6. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Non-native feral animals are a huge problem in Australia, they should be culled mercilessly to preserve our native species. Rabbits, foxes, camels, horses, pigs - anything feral that displaces native species and hasn't become an integral part of the local wildlife cycle - blam blam blam!!!
     
  7. Ser Land

    Ser Land New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Azores, Portugal
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Should, then, that principle be applied to humans too. They quite fit in the category.
     
  8. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +342 / 1 / -0
    Probably - on the scale of destructive alien species to new ecosystems we are pretty high up on the amount of both direct and indirect damage we cause. The problem is humans spread over a majority of the world very early on, so drawing a line as to when we no longer become native is a tricky thing. Remember there were native humans in many of the "new worlds" that the west found and even very early stonage peoples were widly traveled over the globe.

    So its tricky because in a way humans are a part of the global ecosystem and as spread out as many other species are. And in many cases where we were more "primative" in our interactions we were less damaging* than many western, modernised, viewpoints lead us to be.



    * although this too has to come into question - its thought that many savana type environments might infact be an example of long term human manipulation through fireclearing. Which is why many are hard to preserve as savana land once you remove the humans from the equation - aforestation starts to set in and it appears that normal wildfires might not be all that is needed to keep an environment as a widespread savana. Of course this is one of many theories and because of the massive differences in what constitues savana land might only be applicable in some localities.
     
  9. Ser Land

    Ser Land New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Azores, Portugal
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Ah! No fair. I wanted to see Mububban's reaction.
     
  10. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    I'll limit my reaction to "let's keep this about hunting animals, not humans" (even though I accept humans are animals, and yes we are a plague who are destroying the onyl planet that can support us, but it's not relevant in the context of this particular topic as the OP intended).

    Feel free to start another topic on population control or culling of the human herd if you wish.
     
  11. Ser Land

    Ser Land New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Azores, Portugal
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Hey! I'm not Mengele or Rah's Al Ghul.

    It's just that the impact that those species have on the environment, is more human fault, rather than the animal's. And if you thought I was supporting population control, you got it all wrong.
     
  12. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Well yeah, humans introduced these pest species, so they should eradicate them. Seems logical. We're the only ones with means to do it. The animals won't hunt themselves. Pity, it would save so much time :D
     
  13. wanderingmagus

    wanderingmagus Constantly Around :D

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Messages:
    7,561
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    Ratings:
    +248 / 1 / -0
    perhaps we should "cull" the human herds by introducing birth control?
     
  14. Confessor

    Confessor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,820
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +180 / 0 / -0
    Oh Boy!!!! Now you've got me on a subject I'm all for. Here is my response.

    Wolves aren't dangerous to humans. A Wolfs diet is mainly large hoofed mammals; like elk, deer, moose and caribou. Wolves are also known to eat beaver, rabbits and other small prey. Wolves are also scavengers and often eat animals that have died due to other causes like starvation and disease.

    The most common cause of death for wolves is conflict with people over livestock losses. While wolf predation on livestock is fairly uncommon, wolves that do prey on them are often killed to protect the livestock. It is the farmers/herders responsibility to provide non-lethal methods to reduce the chances of a wolf attacking livestock which include methods of using fencing livestock, lighting, alarm systems, and removing dead or dying livestock that may attract carnivores like wolves.

    Another serious threat is human encroachment into wolf territory, which leads to habitat loss for wolves and their prey species. Overall, the greatest threat to wolves is people's fear and misunderstanding about the species. Many fairy tales and myths tend to misrepresent wolves as villainous, dangerous creatures.

    Wolves aren't dangerous period. I support the protection of wolves because these animals are fascinating creatures who are misunderstood by humans. Although I do pity the farmer/herder when they've lost money because of livestock being taken down by wolves but still farmers need to be aware that wolves are have a vast stretch territory which can sometimes be as much as 14 miles or maybe more. Anyway, before my response turns into a chapter of a novel I'm going to quit.

    __________________________________________________________

    As for the main question at hand, I'm all for hunting animals but not tigers, lions, elephants, or any type of animal from Africa, but I'm all for animals such as white tailed deer, black bear, and wild turkeys. You see I don't by hamburger, instead I make my own burger which is called venison. It is less fatty than original hamburger because it is wild and not processed with all of the extra stuff the fda puts into meat. My diet is mainly of fish, crustaceans, venison, and poultry. While we don't have our own chickens, lets face it they reproduce quite a bit.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2010
  15. Ser Land

    Ser Land New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Azores, Portugal
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Aye, that a good idea. Pope says no, though, so we'd all go to hell.

    Ah! The dilemma...
     
  16. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    The simple term "hunting animals" can mean so many things. Native wildlife? Introduced pests? Animals that are so plentiful that controlled hunting would do no harm to population numbers?

    I maintain that if an animal is an introduced pest and is damaging the native ecosystem, they should be huntable.

    Otherwise, I'm not a believer in killing animals like lions, elephants etc purely so you can have a trophy on your wall. Unless you killed it with your bare hands or a knife or a spear, that's "killing" not "hunting" by my way of thinking :D
     
  17. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    I also think that hunting is a valuable survival skill that humans should not lose or forget how to do simply because most of us don't need to do it any more.
     
  18. Ser Land

    Ser Land New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Azores, Portugal
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    I can relate to that.
     
  19. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +342 / 1 / -0
    I (sadly) agree - the same goes for plants and insects where artificially introduced as well. Plants often get forgotten (because they are pretty and don't upturn your bins at night) but invasive plants can be just as deadly to an ecosystem. Whether it be by outcompeting native plants, activly killing them off or even through a carried ilness.

    On the animal side I would far prefer more humane methods for control over introduced pest species - but other methods just fail when compared to hunting
    a) Trap and keep - entrapment is possible, though harder with fast reproducing species. The problem with trap and keep is where do you keep them and who is going to pay for food, pens, vet bills and (of course) land to keep them upon.

    b) Trap and re-release to native homeland - only a possibility with some. For many they are already high in population in their native country and might even be a local pest in that nation (eg grey squirrels in the UK are a pest but are not activly hunted by the authorities - the same is not true in their native america).

    c) Reduce population by introduction of native predator species - no no no and no! This just repeats the problem by moving a little bit further up the foodchain and really can cause masses of problems of its own

    d) Reduce population by disease - anyone remember miximatosis (sp). Nice theory and it all works well in the lab - then throw it at the real world and the chances for contaimination reaching back to the host country of the species is high as well as the ever present chance of a mutation of the diease. A mutation which might devistate the species in question or even jump species.
    It is also the most uncontrolable method as many animals can carry diseases for other species without being too adversly affected

    e) Hunt. Its effective, quick and cheaper than all the others. It's also controlable (at least within most developed and stable nations). It might be brutal, but it works and whilst many societies might not like the idea its a more feasable method than many of the more humane approaches which get defeated by the shear scale of the operations needed.
     
  20. Ser Land

    Ser Land New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Azores, Portugal
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    The first two methods are completely unrealistic. As I'm sure you know.

    Yep. Hunting is the lesser evil.