Should hunting for sport be outlawed?

[SKANK 14,288]

Well I disagree with your second affirmation. Pleasure may be one of the reasons it's done nowadays but it's still done for survival.

And there's no way you feel the same killing an animal than eating meat lol

 

Eating meat in an industrialized nation has nothing to do with survival, it's about personal preference, pleasure, and cultural habits.

If you are eating meat you are responsible for the death of an animal, so I'm not sure I understand your second point.

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

Yes. It's not necessary. At least the chicken and meat I eat is killed for human consumption and not out of "fun." I don't see myself ever killing an animal for fun. 

[Shadow 6,697]

 
So now that we’ve established that the choice to eat any edible substance is a luxury based on two factors, one being that we do have the ability to eat nuts, berries, meat, produce, and etc, and two, with all the innovations in agriculture and biotechnology as the Green Revolution back in the 1940s, developed nations of the world enjoyed more volume in goods to meet the demand of a growing population that ballooned once vaccines for commutable diseases decreased the death rate dramatically. 

The birth rate took much longer to go down than the death rate, which allowed millions of people across the globe to live longer.  These cardiovascular issues being raised became more apparent as people were able to age into their golden years, urbanization brought people from the farms and fields into the city for mostly manufacturing and white collar jobs, and people were able to travel via automobile which reduced the energy needed back then to live and be self sustaining.   

Protein isn't the problem here, since we need protein to grow, build and repair muscles, and maintain a high metabolism rate.  What you’re referring to as the hazards with eating meat are the animal fats and bad cholesterol that come with it.  A protein rich diet of white meat, fish, and other light meats are healthy, contain less fatty acids than dark meat and do contribute to the nutrition percentage though you are correction about people today consuming too much food altogether, including meat. 

It isn’t a bad thing for people to acquire a variety of food to complete the nutrition list for their diet, since we are omnivores and have the ability to do so and choose.   Who said anything about indulging in anything?  We have choices today that our ancestors of less civilized and abundant societies lacked, but that is so with the developed collection of nations.  Many in third world nations still have issues gathering proper foods for beneficial nutrition.  Many in the Western world are able to think about what they eat and therefore choose their diet as they see fit.
What is it that you don’t understand?  Luxury is the same avenue that brings the choices to avoid killing and those who wish to kill for sport.  In both cases due to abundance, those people can choose their diet as they see fit or they can waste their time on a sport at the cost of an animal’s life.   Abundance affords a choice, that’s my point.  If we were all scrambling to survive as in the past, we would do whatever it took to survive and protect our loved ones and children.   If you feel this strongly about protecting animals from the meat industry, I would have thought folks as yourselves could meet people like me halfway to achieve a common goal, uphold the protection of wildlife from senseless violence.  

From my point of view, it just seems more viable to monitor and protect animals from game hunting today than reeducate millions in the free world to refrain from raising livestock and eating meat.  This crusade against meat eaters would take generations to even begin to administer, especially if we factor the demand of those among the 7 billion individuals in this world.

I'm shooting myself in the foot for being against senseless game hunting if I understand the compromise for people using livestock for meat to eat and survive as opposed to complete waste?  If you’re referring to people who overeat meat or anything out of indulgence…  is another problem that comes with luxury and overabundance, isn’t it? 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/politics/

Even if all people on this forum became vegetarians and vegans today, you’re dealing with a steep, uphill battle to tackle the meat industry and the millions in demand that come with it.  
 

 

What

No one is denying that we're in a position of luxury. The position of luxury makes us able to see exactly what Kayla is promoting: we can actually start thinking about what our body needs to live a long healthy life (guess what: a protein-based diet only leads to faster aging and age diseases) because we can actually choose from a large variety of foods. Is that a bad thing? Are you saying that we should indulge in all our options because we have it better than the people before us?

I don't understand. Hunters killed animals for their hides to keep from freezing to death etc. but we managed to outdo that because, out of luxury, we found other ways to replace those needs without the necessary animal cruelty. Why can't we do the same with food, also out of a position of luxury? Hell yeah we can think along these lines now because there are better options - why not use them? If we should indulge in animal cruelty simply because the option is there and people like to eat meat (though for no good reason other than taste [and let's be real, it's more about the sauce and the seasoning etc. than the actual meat] and habit), why are you so opposed to hunting for sport? It looks like you're shooting yourself in the foot. The logic of people being able to choose to kill animals for their own selfish desires is shared by people who eat more meat than they physically need ànd hunters who simply want a real fur coat or a head on the wall. Both groups of people are, in modern society, faced with alternatives, but they simply choose to ignore them. Or do you see a distinction after all?

[Kayla 7,595]

 
So now that we’ve established that the choice to eat any edible substance is a luxury based on two factors, one being that we do have the ability to eat nuts, berries, meat, produce, and etc, and two, with all the innovations in agriculture and biotechnology as the Green Revolution back in the 1940s, developed nations of the world enjoyed more volume in goods to meet the demand of a growing population that ballooned once vaccines for commutable diseases decreased the death rate dramatically. 

The birth rate took much longer to go down than the death rate, which allowed millions of people across the globe to live longer.  These cardiovascular issues being raised became more apparent as people were able to age into their golden years, urbanization brought people from the farms and fields into the city for mostly manufacturing and white collar jobs, and people were able to travel via automobile which reduced the energy needed back then to live and be self sustaining.   

Protein isn't the problem here, since we need protein to grow, build and repair muscles, and maintain a high metabolism rate.  What you’re referring to as the hazards with eating meat are the animal fats and bad cholesterol that come with it.  A protein rich diet of white meat, fish, and other light meats are healthy, contain less fatty acids than dark meat and do contribute to the nutrition percentage though you are correction about people today consuming too much food altogether, including meat. 

It isn’t a bad thing for people to acquire a variety of food to complete the nutrition list for their diet, since we are omnivores and have the ability to do so and choose.   Who said anything about indulging in anything?  We have choices today that our ancestors of less civilized and abundant societies lacked, but that is so with the developed collection of nations.  Many in third world nations still have issues gathering proper foods for beneficial nutrition.  Many in the Western world are able to think about what they eat and therefore choose their diet as they see fit.
What is it that you don’t understand?  Luxury is the same avenue that brings the choices to avoid killing and those who wish to kill for sport.  In both cases due to abundance, those people can choose their diet as they see fit or they can waste their time on a sport at the cost of an animal’s life.   Abundance affords a choice, that’s my point.  If we were all scrambling to survive as in the past, we would do whatever it took to survive and protect our loved ones and children.   If you feel this strongly about protecting animals from the meat industry, I would have thought folks as yourselves could meet people like me halfway to achieve a common goal, uphold the protection of wildlife from senseless violence.  

From my point of view, it just seems more viable to monitor and protect animals from game hunting today than reeducate millions in the free world to refrain from raising livestock and eating meat.  This crusade against meat eaters would take generations to even begin to administer, especially if we factor the demand of those among the 7 billion individuals in this world.

I'm shooting myself in the foot for being against senseless game hunting if I understand the compromise for people using livestock for meat to eat and survive as opposed to complete waste?  If you’re referring to people who overeat meat or anything out of indulgence…  is another problem that comes with luxury and overabundance, isn’t it? 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/politics/

Even if all people on this forum became vegetarians and vegans today, you’re dealing with a steep, uphill battle to tackle the meat industry and the millions in demand that come with it.  
 

 

 

What we're doing is simply saying that if people are outraged over this lion, it would be beneficial to take that compassion and think about how they can apply it to their own lives. That's all. 

Even in my post I didn't say people should altogether stop eating meat, but rather they should consume it at a rate that actually makes sense nutritionally. This isn't me attacking the meat industry, this is me saying- Okay, you want to talk about how you eat meat for survival and you NEED that protein? Then do it right. Do it in a way that lessens the demand but still gives you your nutrients, that way you can keep eating it but it can be raised in a more humane way. 
Like lamb. The demand for lamb is very low, so the farms that have lambs have smaller numbers. They tend to be grassfed, free to roam, etc. Reduce the demand for chickens and beef to that level, they'd most likely get the same treatment. That makes sense to me. 

So we support saving wildlife from senseless violence. We are also taking this opportunity to, as people are preaching about animal welfare, to offer additional ways to provide that to animals. 

As I've said, it's easy to wag a finger at a guy like this jerk who killed Cecil. So why not, in an effort to continue to show our dedication to animal well-being, why not turn that lens towards ourselves and think of ways we individually can practice what we preach?
This doesn't mean becoming vegan or vegetarian, it just means perhaps making some simple changes. It's an uphill battle, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't find ways to bring the concept of nonviolence into our own lives, even if they're small steps. 

[Zsolti 2,688]

"population control" lol seems like something hitler would say to justify his actions. think about it. who are we to control who lives and who dies? 

[socotra 3,357]

Yes.

[RAMROD 117,141]

Yes and no.

No for animal that is rare such as this case.

Yes for moose or deer.cos they are not wasted, because venison meat will be consumed.

 

[Goosey 3,017]

 Okay, first off, talking of African trophy hunting.

1. If a species is overpopulated, they are going to have to cull them. They may as well sell rights to hunters and get money for park funds while doing it.

2. Speaking of elephants and rhinos, it's the old males who are hunted for trophies. For example, a hunter recently paid $350,000 to kill a black rhino - sounds bad, but consider this rhino was already at the end of its lifespan, was not going to produce any more offspring, to the black rhino population, it was irrelevant. It could only affect the population if it injured another male in a fight. The park got a huge sum of money which goes a long way in Africa.

3. Animals which are in abundance, like Cape buffalo, the "black death", are popular with hunters. There's no threat to the animals from trophy hunting.

 

And of course hunting in North America, almost all species are consumed by the hunters. It's more moral than going to the supermarket and buying animals which have been caged by the thousands since birth. It's much more taking responsibility for what you eat.

 

"population control" lol seems like something hitler would say to justify his actions. think about it. who are we to control who lives and who dies? 

If a species gets overpopulated they will die anyways.

1. Not enough food

2. Natural predators

3. Disease

4. Destruction of natural habitat

Some species are very destructive when overpopulated and without the population being kept in check they will all die of starvation and disease. When natural predators are all but eliminated (ie: deer in North America), or a herd is kept confined to a park (ie: elephants in some places in Africa), it's necessary to keep their population under control. Otherwise they die, or they destroy something else. And of course people do not want deer on the highways. 

 

[TiphEret 1,320]

I think this is a very good topic because it raises a lot of question. First regarding killing for sport, from our perspectives (hunters) it is a sport and not survival. But it is for the people who get paid, there is a huge economy behind it and unless you give them good logical reasons not to do it they won't stop because some westerners think lions are cute, that's the sad truth. And let's not even think of the cultural aspect and how animals are considered differently in African countries, to be honest they are a lot less cruel they have most meat free range and eat a lot less meat than us....

However what we could look at is better regulation, if you can't stop it try to regulate it more. I don't think making it illegal will work simply because if there is demands, a black market will develop for that. And maybe more information, like if you are a hunter for sport, your money should go to conservation and it's what is done somehow according to Kayla. 

I think you can also tackle that issue which is basically killing animal for a thrill if you change our perspective on animals. Most humans consider themselves above animals and that they are simply properties that we can dispose of. 

The meat indsutry is a big topic: Unless you are on the faroe island (yes remember everyobody shocked by the killing of whales, guess what it is survival) or in the walking dead you don't need to consume meat, that's that simple. You will find other source of protrein and actually better becauyse guess what you won't get much out of your meat if you cook it and I don't see most people having steak tartare everyday. If you are so worried get your self some hence and eat raw eggs from time to time. But first of all we need between 5 to 10% of protein in our diet and animal protein comes in such big amount that pretty much 80% of the protein in your meat will end up in your urine because your body won't use all of that. Protein are a chain of amino acid, that you can find in most veggies... So meat for survival , unless you have not access to veggies and fruits, nuits and eggs you can survive without meat. I also don't see anyone screaming about C vitamin deficiency when people say they don't like fruit, so there are some double standard with nutrients IMO...

I don't think it's realistic to think we can stop meat consumption like thta, but we can change our practice: raise taxes on intensive production and low quality meat, this not only killing animals but also people ( just in my minbd right now the China study, that shows that high consumption of animal products leads to many diseases easpecially cancer) and that's why western countries have such a high rates for "lifestyle diseases". Consume meat that has been hunted or that has been raised properly with a good diet. And you can do that , starting from today quit macdonalds, people eat it only because of additives because let's face it it would be horrible without it and buy organic quality that you get from a local farm . Let's not even talk about the environemental damages caused by meat production.... 

So all in all I think there is different actions that can be taken on both topics but you can't stop them just like that.

[Kayla 7,595]

I think this is a very good topic because it raises a lot of question. First regarding killing for sport, from our perspectives (hunters) it is a sport and not survival. But it is for the people who get paid, there is a huge economy behind it and unless you give them good logical reasons not to do it they won't stop because some westerners think lions are cute, that's the sad truth. And let's not even think of the cultural aspect and how animals are considered differently in African countries, to be honest they are a lot less cruel they have most meat free range and eat a lot less meat than us....

However what we could look at is better regulation, if you can't stop it try to regulate it more. I don't think making it illegal will work simply because if there is demands, a black market will develop for that. And maybe more information, like if you are a hunter for sport, your money should go to conservation and it's what is done somehow according to Kayla. 

I think you can also tackle that issue which is basically killing animal for a thrill if you change our perspective on animals. Most humans consider themselves above animals and that they are simply properties that we can dispose of. 

The meat indsutry is a big topic: Unless you are on the faroe island (yes remember everyobody shocked by the killing of whales, guess what it is survival) or in the walking dead you don't need to consume meat, that's that simple. You will find other source of protrein and actually better becauyse guess what you won't get much out of your meat if you cook it and I don't see most people having steak tartare everyday. If you are so worried get your self some hence and eat raw eggs from time to time. But first of all we need between 5 to 10% of protein in our diet and animal protein comes in such big amount that pretty much 80% of the protein in your meat will end up in your urine because your body won't use all of that. Protein are a chain of amino acid, that you can find in most veggies... So meat for survival , unless you have not access to veggies and fruits, nuits and eggs you can survive without meat. I also don't see anyone screaming about C vitamin deficiency when people say they don't like fruit, so there are some double standard with nutrients IMO...

I don't think it's realistic to think we can stop meat consumption like thta, but we can change our practice: raise taxes on intensive production and low quality meat, this not only killing animals but also people ( just in my minbd right now the China study, that shows that high consumption of animal products leads to many diseases easpecially cancer) and that's why western countries have such a high rates for "lifestyle diseases". Consume meat that has been hunted or that has been raised properly with a good diet. And you can do that , starting from today quit macdonalds, people eat it only because of additives because let's face it it would be horrible without it and buy organic quality that you get from a local farm . Let's not even talk about the environemental damages caused by meat production.... 

So all in all I think there is different actions that can be taken on both topics but you can't stop them just like that.

Absolutely brilliant post. Totally agree with everything said. I also like the idea of making low quality meat LESS accessible. And your reference to how people don't preach about Vitamin C deficiency when someone claims they don't like fruit is spot on- there are definitely double standards with nutrients, and I think it comes from people grasping at anything they can to defend a practice that they know deep down is flawed and unnecessary. 

I'm glad that this issue with Cecil is spurring these conversations. It's a good time to think about how we can help animals. 

[MonsterOfSpain 8,331]

How, in the United States, is the meat industry for survival? If you actually try to answer that question you will understand a bit better (answer: it isn't)

Eating meat should feel like killing an animal. That's the point. People who like to hunt at least aren't in denial about what they are doing.

Sorry but it doesn't feel like that to me, and I don't think that it ever will  

[Jjang 2,262]

Sorry but it doesn't feel like that to me, and I don't think that it ever will  

Would it feel like that if you had to kill the animal you're eating with your own hands then?

[Pitch 204]

I think thing a lot of members are missing is the idea of respect toward the animal, that's the difference between hunting to eat and hunting for fun, with hunting to eat the animal is respected, their life isnt wasted it goes too a purpose it is used for consumption, yes people can survive without meat and there are thos that do but that's another arguement for another day, whereas hunting for fun has no respect for the animal as another living being, their life does not end for a purpose, their bodies are left to rote. Basically what I'm trying to say is that when you eat meat you are respecting the animal and recognising its death should serve a purpose and not go to waste, but when the animal is killed for artificial reasons such as fun or to wear the fur there is no respect, it is seen as something that is beneath even food.

[Didymus 34,380]

I think thing a lot of members are missing is the idea of respect toward the animal, that's the difference between hunting to eat and hunting for fun, with hunting to eat the animal is respected, their life isnt wasted it goes too a purpose it is used for consumption, yes people can survive without meat and there are thos that do but that's another arguement for another day, whereas hunting for fun has no respect for the animal as another living being, their life does not end for a purpose, their bodies are left to rote. Basically what I'm trying to say is that when you eat meat you are respecting the animal and recognising its death should serve a purpose and not go to waste, but when the animal is killed for artificial reasons such as fun or to wear the fur there is no respect, it is seen as something that is beneath even food.

When 99,99% of global meat eaters in the average Western country haven't even seen the animal whose meat they're buying in a store all prepared for cooking, requiring only a minimal effort on the part of the indidividual, how is that respect? And when people eat for fun and not because they actually need meat to acquire physical health, how is that not artificial?

The habitual way of eating meat in our countries is not focused on food intake. Food is a culture. In most cases it's even the company and what you do besides eating that really matters during a meal. The way we eat is also beneath food, since nutrition and health are, in normal cases, not even on the figurative table. When children are being brainwashed in schools into thinking that sugar is not a d--g, that potatoes are healthy and are part of a healthy lifestyle, that a vegetarian meal is an exception to a typical meal with meat (or various sorts of meat on one plate), how can you even say that the meat industry is about food? It's about economical purposes for the people on the production end, and about entertainment and maybe 10% nutrition for the people on the consuming end.

I wouldn't call that anywhere near respect.

For the record: I'm not a vegetarian, I am not suggesting any change towards the future ('cause I consider that, mostly, pointless), I'm an animal lover but I don't make serious efforts to minimize their suffering, I don't even like humans for god's sake, I only care about false logic here. The animal in question doesn't know it's being killed for a purpose. That way the murder of a lion for meat or fur is equal in result, unequal in the philosophical bs people hang around it so they can live with themselves. Pretending that the animal doesn't go to waste because it ends up in our digestion system is one of the more embarrassing ways to philosophize your way out of a basic fact: people don't do anything without a purpose. You may say that the purpose of a sport hunter and a Western meat eater is different, but the result is the same: the animal dies because we consider it to be worthless (or less worthy in more humane contexts) in the face of whatever purpose we might have.

I'm not criticizing that view, just opening up the underlying current. I will keep maintaining that there is no good reason to judge hunting for sport more than the mass breeding and systematic butchering of animals we no longer need to survive. In fact, I think it's more than obvious that the latter is more repulsive by far.

[TiphEret 1,320]

I think thing a lot of members are missing is the idea of respect toward the animal, that's the difference between hunting to eat and hunting for fun, with hunting to eat the animal is respected, their life isnt wasted it goes too a purpose it is used for consumption, yes people can survive without meat and there are thos that do but that's another arguement for another day, whereas hunting for fun has no respect for the animal as another living being, their life does not end for a purpose, their bodies are left to rote. Basically what I'm trying to say is that when you eat meat you are respecting the animal and recognising its death should serve a purpose and not go to waste, but when the animal is killed for artificial reasons such as fun or to wear the fur there is no respect, it is seen as something that is beneath even food.

It is true but what you say only apply for hunting though not simply eating meat because the meat industry doesn't even respect humans... but I agree , hunting for sport is openly cruel and disrespectful while hunting for meat can be done respectfully