Hunting ban; good or bad thing?

Question

Personally, I think its a good thing. Just something about the killing of animals for the shear entertainment and pleasure of it seems wrong to me.

Please let me note that i do eat meat. I know that may seem to be contradictary of me, but it is one thing to kill an animal for food, and quite another to kill an animal for fun. I mean, if you're for hunting, why not leaglise such things as **** fighting?

Okay, the work **** (or rouster or male chichen) was omited from my last addition. But that was meant to be cockfighting, ie fighting between two male chickens.

And the point is made that carnivores will not keep down the population because they don’t go into human inhabited areas. Bulls***. I happen to know for a fact that bears, foxes and other such predators have been seen quite often in towns and cities. And how are pray more likely to go into human inhabited areas than preditors?
Okay, there have been a lot of good points about animal conservation, giving the deer as an example. But what about animals such as fox’s, hares and birds. Surely their population doesn’t need to be controlled. And human have only been on this earth for about 3 million years. Nature seemed to do just fine keeping the balance for millions of years before we appeared. I know animals now have us to contend with, but surely there’s a better solution than killing them.

Oh, There are limets to hunters about just how much they can hunt and of what? please explain. no seriously, please do, thats got me interested. I still wouldn't go hunting, gut you've still got my interest.

Oh, There are limets to hunters about just how much they can hunt and of what? please explain. no seriously, please do, thats got me interested. I still wouldn't go hunting, but you've still got my interest.

Okay, hunting for food. I can accept that. But what about those who only hunt for pleasure and fun. And if it's really the thrill of the chase, then why kill it once you've caught it.
And, for food. would it not be true to that those we breed for food are less likely to become endangered?

Answer 1

I see nothing wrong with hunting as long as you eat it.

Rember Saint Andrew was a fisherman.

Answer 2

The ban on fox hunting was indeed a Labour Bill in the House of Commons. However, the main supporters of this Bill included such as Anne Widecombe MP - a Tory. In any event, there was a free vote which resulted in a win for the Bill and thus for Labour. The law forbidding fox hunting is a bit of a mess and some think it rather ambiguous. No one really wants to stop people doing 'sport' it's just the hunting with dogs which some wanted to put an end to. It does not stop the killing of foxes however. Curiously the largest number of Hunts in England are located in the English Midlands where there are actually more foxes than anywhere else. In East Anglia, where are no Hunts and foxes are simply shot dead by gamekeepers, there are very few foxes. Hunting with dogs then does not keep the fox pop down. There are on average about two foxes to the acre in the countryside. Therefore in a single forty acre Sussex field there could be as many as eighty foxes. Blimey!

Answer 3

Hunting for just sport or trophies is just plain wrong in my opinion, but in many places hunting is used to put food on the table. Also, because the balance of nature has been upset due to removing or reducing animals like wolves, reducing the population of animals is required.

I heard of a story from a long time ago in which the Forest Service was to reduce the numbers from a herd of deer near the Grand Canyon. The Sierra Club objected and won, so that Bambi would not be shot. The end result was that Bambi ate everything in sight, turned the land into a desert and then Bambi starved. The good thing was that Bambi was not shot. It is this type of short-sighted thinking which causes serious problems.

Your information is limited if you think that hunting is just about entertainment and pleasure. Most is used for food. The animals taken by hunting often have a better, although harder, life than in the stock yards and the like.

Answer 4

For one thing if you talk to 95% of the hunting population they use the animals they hunt for food. If they don't they donate the meat to hunter for hunger. The animal population needs to be controled too. In some areas deer are so overpopulated that their is a disese they are getting called Chronic Wasting Disese. This disese causes imence pain and suffering to the deer, and worse it can spread to other species of animals. There have even been a few cases of humans getting it. If you drive through any towns in a rural area you will see squirrels and rabbits running everywhere. You obviously are just saying this blindly because if you where a hunter or new anything about hunting you would know there are bag limits that prevent just outright slaughtering of the animal. A Hunting band would be the stupidest thing anyone could do.

Answer 5

Well I eat what I kill so I don't see a problem with hunting. Many states have a Hunters For The Hungry program that will take any deer that you don't want as a donation for the food banks.Many people contribute to this cause and many needy people greatly appreciate the meals they receive from this program. Over population is controlled and needy people are helped,everyone wins here. Land management and parks and recreation depend greatly on the revenue collected from hunting and fishing license.Without these funds we wouldn't have all these nice parks to visit.You can thank your sportsman for their generous donations every year

Answer 6

i would say it would be impossible to ban hunting completely. as vermin/pest control is a form of hunting then we would be overrun with rats, foxes, rabbits and corvids. this would mean an increase in disease and a decrease in song birds, other rodents and household cats.
hunters are limited by season on when they can hunt and also what they can shoot e.g. deer have separate seasons for bucks and does so that you dont shoot the does during breeding but you can be selective and take out the older weaker males therefore giving new blood into the herds. most game shoots (pheasant etc) are hand reared and introduced to the wild to be shot. and then only shot a few times over a short season. these measures are what us serious hunters call conservation and are there to protect both the quarry and its environment. and remember as stated above not all shooting is for pleasure. i do enjoy mine that i cannot deny although it can have its bad days.

Answer 7

You need to get out there more. Nature controls populations in a way that's somewhat less than pleasant, and with human population densities what they are, hunting is very much necessary. Alternatives have been tried and seem never to work. But you miss the point of hunting altogether. It's the hunt, not the kill, that's really important to us who enjoy the sport.

Answer 8

Banning hunting would be a bad thing. If it weren't for hunting, alot of the city boys would never make it out to the country. Hunting isn't just about going out and killing something for the fun of it, although that's how outdoor shows make it look. At least the animals have a chance, unlike an animal sent to the slaughterhouse. It may seem wrong to you, but it seems right to alot of us.

Answer 9

A hunting ban would of course be a bad thing, as would be OBVIOUS to anybody who lived in an area where you could actually hunt animals. Populations need to be controlled in order to achieve the best balance possible. Pepople who say hunting is so cruel OBVIOUSLY have never seen the effects of chronic wasting disease to a deer population. Perhaps you should put down your cheeseburgers and go visit a lockerplant or slaughter house to see where YOUR meat comes from. Compared to that, an arrow through the lungs seems humane.

Answer 10

Hunting purely for sport ie. for fur or antlers does nothing for me. I am however an avid hunter for food and the opportunity it gives for bonding with my family. I have four kids. One son and three daughters. My son and daughter in law and two of my girls hunt. We eat what we bring home. It doesn't go to waste at my house. And being out in nature gives us all time to spend together uninterrupted by the the modern conveniences. And anything that I hunt for has a much greater chance at survival than a cow at a slaughter house.

Answer 11

It is bad to dictate any such matter to everyone. Witness prohibition, etc. Telling people they cannot do something makes many people do it to spite the dictators. Many people enjoy hunting, and it is cruel to try to deprive them of it. I put humans far ahead of all other animals. PeTA is ridiculous. Ingrid Newkirk said she is against animal testing even if it finds a cure for AIDS. She was upset about a donkey being killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber but says nothing about many humans killed. It is such nuts as this who stir up gullible people with anti-hunting and vegetarian nonsense. Awake!!!