I feel for animals. I love them, and I hate to see hunters(definition for hunters- heartless monsters-) kill them just to hang them up on walls or use them as carpets. These beautiful wild animals do not deserve to be treated in such a nasty a cruel way. So my question is, would you sign a petition to ban sport(hobby) hunting?
I am putting this question in this category because many wild animals have become pets over many decades.
2006-11-26 09:03:39 · 11 answers · asked by ? 2 in Pets ➔ Other - Pets
I respect everyone's opinions!
Thanks!
2006-11-26 09:07:11 · update #1
I would most definitely sign a petition for that. I have said that for years. Killing wild animals for sport is cruel and the animals don't deserve that kind of treatment. It's plain cruel. If you or someone else makes a petition for this purpose, I will sign it. I feel the same way and I hope that the killing will end soon. You have my support.
2006-11-26 09:11:39 · answer #1 · answered by Kris 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I would Never Sign It.I Dont Hunt, But Live in a heavily Populated Deer Area.If Hunters Didnt Thin Them Out Not Only Would The Deer Starve to death, But your Grocery Bills would Triple from all the Crop damage They would Do..Hunting Does have Rules..You dont kill Babies .You have seasons for each Animal and Its when They arent Nursing Babies...You can only Kill Does a Very Few Days Out Of the Year...Its just as Humane as That Big Mechanical Hammer Thing They Use on Cattle At the Slaughterhouse That We eat!!!!!! And The Meat Is Healthier,Free Range Non Steriod Filled!
2006-11-26 09:19:13 · answer #2 · answered by roxie_29812 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I do not agree with hunters that shoot predators or endangered species for ANY reason! However, hunting can actually serve a good purpose, they keep populations down (deer) so that they are not running rampant destroying and eating all the vegetation and so that they do not end up straving to death. Also, as far as ducks go, hunters have a lot of money and provide for THOUSANDS of acres of land to be preserved for ducks, other birds, and wildlife in general. They provide year round and espcecially wintering grounds for birds to be preserved. They do hunt them at hunting season and say maybe shoot a couple thousand ducks per season, but at the same time they save the lives of 20 thousand ducks that would have starved to death if not for that land the hunters pay for to be preserved. Most of the land that hunters pay to upkeep yearround so that they can hunt on it once a year would probably end up being plowed down for condos or mini-malls if not for the hunters. MOST hunters follow the laws, get proper hunting licenses and only take the legal limit allowed. Believe it or not, MOST hunters are environmentalist and respect nature probably more than the average person.
2006-11-26 10:15:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's not a plea agreement or a confession. That's the Summary of the Facts. The plea agreement contains a lot more than that. That's only between Vick and the federal DA. If the judge would have ever denied a plea agreement or Vick changed his mind, that would have been thrown out and never used as evidence. That's all public record. Everyone knows the basic facts as stated there. How would that be able to make someone decide whether or not he should be able to play again. It's each individual's moral/value judgement. Russell Simmons and Al Sharpton, especially that buffoon Al Sharpton, would have no impact on most people's decision.
2016-05-23 05:26:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As stated no I would not sign a petition to ban hunting.
I also hate "trophy" hunting where you are killing an animal to mount it's head or hide on your wall.
However I hunt but we eat all the upland game birds we kill.
If they did not hunt some of the deer in our area they would eat us out of house and home. They are very thick here and they get hit and killed on the roads and some starve becasue there are so many. So hunting thins out the population and is good for the overall health of the breed.
2006-11-26 09:25:14 · answer #5 · answered by tlctreecare 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. The last thing we need is an overpopulation of deer. What do you want, hit a deer every few feet because there's too many of them? What are you going to do with the overload of population when a predator (man, in this case) is no longer hunting a species?
And just who keeps a wild animal as a pet? They are wild animals and should NOT be kept as pets. Domesticated pets are different.
2006-11-27 09:31:08 · answer #6 · answered by nokhada5 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For deer hunting, yes-and any other hunting except fox hunting. I fox hunt (on horseback) and the fox is not harmed in any way. We do not shoot them, we let the hounds chase them and we follow the hounds for the thrill of the hunt. Also (no offense to hounds) the fox is always much smarter than the hounds and "outfoxes" them. This is not a constant chase; the fox runs for a little then hides until they hear the hounds coming, runs for a little then hides and so on. Like I said, the fox is not harmed in any way. Deer hunting however is different. I am against that. However, "Roxie" has a good point and I do agree with her to some extent. I have seen an unhealthily skinny deer before and my heart went out for it.
2006-11-26 11:49:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
i would definitely sign that petition. I knew a guy who said he wanted to kill a bear, just so he could say he killed a bear. It made me furious.
2006-11-26 09:12:09 · answer #8 · answered by Stark 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. I don't hunt but I don't want a starving doe to have a miscarriage on my front lawn, so I will allow hunting.
2006-11-26 09:11:41 · answer #9 · answered by Kacky 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
ya i would that is so mean
2006-11-26 09:09:21 · answer #10 · answered by monkeychip1001 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋