Is big game hunting moraly right?

Answer 1

All in all it is not morally wrong. Most area in the US i know have areas regulated and you need to be licensed. This also involves limits on the amount you can kill in a single sitting and over the course of a season. These number are actually the result of environmental studies. Wild life conservationist are heavily involved in the regulation of what you can and can't hunt. It is not just a bunch of people with guns killing for killing. Now there are those areas where poachers roam free which is wrong.

Although I personally am not a hunter I do know quite a few and none of them play against the rules or kill just for the sake of killing. You will not understand the pain behind a deer hunter having a perfect shot lined up and not being able to pull the trigger -- or bow back -- because does are not in season. Most use the meat to make food and sell skins and such to people buying them.

Answer 2

The myth of sport hunting is hard to kill. Have you ever seen or read a State Wildlife rules and regulations bulletin? The laws are very strict about what a hunter can and can't do. In some states such as Alaska the size of the antlers is controlled. You can only shoot a moose with xx size antlers. In all states what you do after you shoot a big game animal is strictly controlled. Leave a shot animal in the field with out harvesting the meat and you have just committed a felony. And that is jail and thousands of dollars of fines and you can not hunt for up to 15 years or even a life time hunting suspension.
As far as hunting being a rich mans sport, HA! In Colorado you can get a resident deer license for $34 and there is public land you can hunt free on. In the year 2002 Colorado had over 500,000 hunters in the field and 90 per cent of them were residents with a $34 license and a rifle.
Naturally the liberal press would never interview a normal hunter family for their views. They only interview rich and important people that like to brag about their powers.
That is the kind of junk they want to publish, not the truth.
Sarge the poor hunter

Answer 3

It's always amusing, if a little frightening, to see the odd views of the anti-hunters, who don't have a clue what it is that they oppose. There is nobody on the planet more opposed to "canned hunts" than a hunter. And brddg has it right.
I had the good fortune to grow up hunting in one of my state's oldest hunting clubs. The remaining "old timers" when I was little gave me a bit of perspective. When the club began, agriculture, logging, road-building, and an expanding human population had reduced the deer population of the state to a few thousand, none in that part of the state. Now there are more deer than people, and they're bigger and healthier than ever. That's because hunters spent their money on wildlife. It was sportsmen who insisted on a national level on the Pittman-Robertson Act. It was hunters who on a state level dictated to the state how to set up a fish and game commission and how to protect wildlife. It was hunters on a local level who re-stocked game, negotiated with the timber companies, planted food specifically for the animals, and managed their well-being. I also remember back in the 60's when the game biologists told us (there were maybe thirty people in deer camp) that we had to add 300 does to our deer kill one winter because of overpopulation. My little brother and I killed a dozen one morning. It was a sad affair, and one of the old original members stood at the skinning rack with tears running down his face, and we all felt the same way. We do what has to be done. And the day I don't feel some sadness when I kill a beautiful animal is the day I'll stop hunting. Hunters carry the load here. Non-hunting "conservation groups" have almost no impact, and government agencies tend to have a negative impact if they aren't checked by hunters. So the next time you talk to a hunter, thank him for the very existence of the animals we all love.

Answer 4

For some people it is for some it's not. Today we have hundreds of regulations for hunters because long ago too many White trash scum like Wild Bill decided to go across America by train killing off thousands of Buffalo. If they did keep anything it was only the hide and not mutch else. Today that same mentality exists but now the white man controls what you can and cannot shoot. Isn't that a bunch of crap. I never shoot anything that I am not willing to eat unless it is a threat to my family or animals and I rarely shoot anything with horns unless I am asked to by the rancher himself. I have no use for horns or a trophy and as long as I get the meat I want I don't need anything else. I hate it when I see a person who kills an animal and then says I don't like to eat them I just like hunting them so I give them away. Those are the biggest ******* around. If you have a problem with what I'm say you are probably one of those pricks.

Answer 5

People hunt for many reasons. Big game hunting also is for food since in the USA peccary through moose are considered big game.

Sometimes one has to hunt down big game to cull the herd and ease the foraging pressure so that the herd can better be able to survive. Other times big game become rogue and dangerous and have to be hunted down and destroyed.

Is it morally right to hunt big game? It usually is. Sometimes, like during the great bison hide hunts in our own United States it is pure avarice.

Best.

H

Answer 6

A more appropriate question might be "how can anyone who claims to love animals oppose hunting?" To "Let nature take it's course" is now impossible. Through habitat loss, for our homes, the farms that raise our food, the highways we all drive on etc. we have altered nature to the point where she is no longer on her own course. I feel we have a moral responsibility to care for the wildlife on this planet. The only mortality factor in animal populations over which people can exert direct control is hunting. It has been proven to be an effective tool in keeping wildlife populations healthy and should be utilized to do so.

Answer 7

Couple years ago the local paper had an article on this
female lady girl woman big game hunter...the rag made a big deal of it.
Zowie.
The part I found offensive was a photo of the person posing with a giraffe she had shot, artfully draped over this Sahib chair she was sitting in...
WTF ? What possible purpose can there be in shooting a giraffe ? You need a long, skinny rug ?

Sorry - this one I don't get.

Answer 8

Of course it is, without question.
Except when it's not.
See, Right and Wrong are absolutes, that come from some outside source - God, generally. So, if you are a Christian, for example, God has granted you dominion over the animals and it is your God-given right to do with them as you see fit. If you're Hindu or Jain, your religion tells you that eating meat is wrong, as is Violence against animals, so under those systems hunting is Morally wrong.
The thing is, in almost all cases, religion based moral system prohibit forcing their morality on anyone else.
So....For me, Hunting is not immoral. For you - It's up to you...But don't try to force your morality on me.

Answer 9

For your information Barbara W and Lisa D.
Rare or endangered species are protected and programs to assure their survival are supported by the excise tax on sporting goods. The only big game that can be hunted are those with populations that need to be controled by hunting to prevent over population and reduce crop damage. So not only is it moraly ok, it is necessary.

Answer 10

Hello all I'm new here but i like to say i hunt and fish and yes just for food on my family table. i worked for the state once and now do rescues , i have deer and turkeys and no not to eat. i show people and teach. if one has to go i give to the needy.i have all kinds of critters but this subject is good one. i know if the animals hunters hunt (for food) need to be managed or rabies and other sickness comes. so it is moral at times i agree to most of you's natta_kim